4047 vs 4050

[tgrokz]

so my next mic wilpl be one of these 2, i think. i will be using it for vocals mostly. i will be doing rock, r&b, rap, acoustic mellow stuff, metal, etc.
i listened to the samples on the AT page, and the 4050 sounded more pleasing to my ears. had a more thick and smooth feel with a ton of clarity, as the 4047 seemed almost boxy and slightly muffled, compared to the 4050. also, its multi-patterned.
but im seeing al lthese rave reviews on the 4047 here, so im wonderiing how they compare. i was pretty set on the 4050, and i trust my ears 100%, but i would like to hear what you guys have to say.

[moon_unit]

Originally Posted by tgrokz

so my next mic wilpl be one of these 2, i think. i will be using it for vocals mostly. i will be doing rock, r&b, rap, acoustic mellow stuff, metal, etc.
i listened to the samples on the AT page, and the 4050 sounded more pleasing to my ears. had a more thick and smooth feel with a ton of clarity, as the 4047 seemed almost boxy and slightly muffled, compared to the 4050. also, its multi-patterned.
but im seeing al lthese rave reviews on the 4047 here, so im wonderiing how they compare. i was pretty set on the 4050, and i trust my ears 100%, but i would like to hear what you guys have to say.

Totally a matter of personal taste. Very generally speaking, though ... the 4050 tends to be just very realistic and true to the source, while the 4047 is a little more of a colored or tailored sound; has a certain vibe to it. 4050 might be a little more versatile, but they're both great mics.

.

[djui5]

do a search..this has been discussed a bit here.

[tgrokz]

i have searched a bunch, and there were no 4050 v 4047 posts. there was a 4047v4050 thread in the rap section, but no one responded, and im not doing just rap.
and also, i couldnt really find all too many posts about using them for vocals. most people said over and over they are "good on a number of things", but never specified vocals.

[djui5]

Fair enough..

This might help you

http://www.audio-technica.com/cms//e...cca/index.html

[Sounds Great]

Originally Posted by djui5

Fair enough..

This might help you

http://www.audio-technica.com/cms//e...cca/index.html

AT4047/SV:

Incorporating a transformer-coupled output and a specially tuned element, the AT4047/SV provides the warm sonic characteristics reminiscent of early F.E.T. studio microphone designs

4050: Transformerless circuitry virtually eliminates low-frequency distortion and provides superior correlation of high-speed transients

I've had both (I still have a 4047) and a lot of other much more expensive microphones and I think the 4047 is the best value going. It has a bit more presense than the 4050 and yet is not so colored that it can't be used on a lot of different sources. Also off-axis response if fairly even. I also like the 4050 but it doesn't have that "hi-fi" sound that I like, and always seemed a llittle scooped to me. Still a pretty neutral mic that can always be useful.

[djui5]

Originally Posted by Sounds Great

I've had both (I still have a 4047) and a lot of other much more expensive microphones and I think the 4047 is the best value going. It has a bit more presense than the 4050 and yet is not so colored that it can't be used on a lot of different sources. Also off-axis response if fairly even. I also like the 4050 but it doesn't have that "hi-fi" sound that I like, and always seemed a llittle scooped to me. Still a pretty neutral mic that can always be useful.

Agreed

I've spent a bit of time with both, and had some samples online for a while. I'd personally never use a 4050 for vocals, but could use the 4047. I have used the 4060 for vox a bit, but that's not in question here...so I won't mention it.

[Seamus TM]

We've had a pair of 4050's and one 4047 for a long time.
Got REALLY sick of the 4050's. The high end on it is nasty to my ears. That typical cheap, hyped condenser top.
The 4047 has a nice flavor to it, but doesn't get used on everything, obviously.

We sold both 4050's and kept the 4047.

However, we have other stuff to compliment the 4047. It's not our "go to" by any stretch of the imagination.

Hope it helps,
Seamus

[popmann]

4050 does better on my voice, IMO. So, depending on who you listen to, that would mean I like accurracy...or nasty high end...or a scooped sound.

4047 is cool, too...but, is a thicker sound w/duller top--and by that, I mean duller than the source. I would imagine it's great on guitar amps.

4060 beats'em both on my voice, FWIW.

[tgrokz]

scooped and too much high end in the 4050? hm.....i guess those samples on the AT page were misleading.
maybe i should reconsider using either of those 2 mics. AGHHH this is the part i hate. trying to find the best mic for what i need for my money...because if i dont think i got the best one, ill be kicking myself (as would anyone). i dont even know why i was so much leaning towards those mics, as opposed to any other ones. i think it was because i herd so much about the 4047, looked into it, then herd it side by side with the 4050.
i would ask for suggestions for vocal mics in the $500 range, but im sure there are a billion threads like that.
any more opinions on these mics would still be very much appreciated, as were al lthe ones i got so far. thanks guys.

[Sounds Great]

Originally Posted by tgrokz

i would ask for suggestions for vocal mics in the $500 range, but im sure there are a billion threads like that.
any more opinions on these mics would still be very much appreciated, as were al lthe ones i got so far. thanks guys.

You can get a used 4047 for under $300. I can't think of others at that price that sound so good. I use mine on my guitar cab and my voice. Love it!

[xj32]

I agree with what everyone has been saying so far as well.

I have never warmed up to the 4050 (as a similarly priced multi-pattern mic I think the Shure KSM-44 blows it out of the water!).

I have a 4060 and love it to death on almost everything from room oh's to vocals to percussion, ect.

...however I think the 4047 may be one of the best mics AT has ever produced...period.

It has a thick cool vibe all its own and that is what I look for in a mic...vibe and uniqueness.

Xj

[TheArchitect]

The 4050 is a more than decent mic. But like any mic its horses for courses. I have used the 4050 on several voices. On one, it really did sound bright and very bad. on another it was the cats ass. The others fall in between.

So what review do I write, that it was amazing or that it sucked? The truth is that like any mic it is completely source dependant. Are there "better" mics out there? Probably but you are dangerously close to the territory where "better" is a taste issue and not a technical one.

[Seamus TM]

Yes.
The Shure KSM44 is VERY impressive. We had one on loan for a while for a project my partner was doing. Very easy and true.

I've used the AT4060 a bunch on acoustic guitar and vocals. THAT is a good AT mic.

Seamus

[Jazzy Alz]

Originally Posted by Mumblesound

We've had a pair of 4050's and one 4047 for a long time.
Got REALLY sick of the 4050's. The high end on it is nasty to my ears. That typical cheap, hyped condenser top.
The 4047 has a nice flavor to it, but doesn't get used on everything, obviously.

We sold both 4050's and kept the 4047.

However, we have other stuff to compliment the 4047. It's not our "go to" by any stretch of the imagination.

Hope it helps,
Seamus

On almost all applications, I like the 4033's the better than 4050's

On guitar - 4050 sounds too bright and lacks soul (4033 beats it)
On Vox - 4050 sounds too bright for most singers/rappers (4033 beats it)

I'd buy a 4033 and a 4060

By the way, I'm interested in selling my AT4050 in mint condition, pm me if really want to buy one.

[feyshay]

I'd go for the 4050, especially since you liked it better on the comparison. It is clearer, probably because it is more hyped on the higher frequencies. I like that--others don't. Not a bad mic on acoustic guitar either.
You probably won't go wrong with any of those mics. The high end clarity is a feature of the 4050.

[popmann]

scooped and too much high end in the 4050? hm.....i guess those samples on the AT page were misleading.

Just for clarification, I shoulda stuck a on the end of mine. I don't believe it's scooped OR has a "nasty" high end.

As a vocalist, the 4033 has a nice tone, but it does NOT track dynamics well...it spends it's time in front of my amp--that's it. Maybe if you had a singer who wasn't very dynamic...

I think the whole upper half of the line are great. If I had a pair of 4050s, 4047s, and 4060s, I could make a great sounding record with nothing else. Actually, I'd like them to take the more "vintage" vibe of the 4047 and make a multipattern--same with the 4060.

If I were to only have one to...if it were ONLY for voice, I'd pick the 4060. If it was a multipurpose mic, I'd pick the 4050 without hesitating.

[liquidorange]

i got a 4047 based on all the thumbs up.im kinda disappointed. worked as a room mic or in front of the kick but the last 3 singers i tried it just didnt work.the 4040 worked best. the 4050 also worked but had no real character. not bright just kinda nuetral but very useable. just got a 4060 and cant wait to try it.

[uncle duncan]

Put a 4050 through a cheap peice of **** preamp and you've got a 4047. The freq response charts are very similar, the difference being the mushy high end of the 4047. I have both, and I prefer the 4050. If your local vendor will let you, take both home, plus a MXL V series, and a Rode NT2A (lotta 'shimmer' on that one) just to see what works on your voice.

[xj32]

Actually in response to Uncle Duncan,

I have to agree that if you like the AT 4047, check out the MXL V6.

Again, a very inexpensive mic with a great "sound". Meaning it wont work on everything, but the things it works on are awesome!

Xj

[moon_unit]

I'm kind of surprized by a lot of these responses. I'm sorry, but if you think the 4050 has a hyped high end, or is scooped in any way ... I can't help but think that you're deaf. Or just not very bright or observant. "Bright" and "scooped" are just not two adjectives that would ever cross my mind with that particular mic.

..

[d_fu]

Anyone here using the 4047 in classical music recording setups?

Daniel

[tgrokz]

damn. now im even more torn! i was looking for 4060s on ebay, and the cheepest was around $700 or so, so i might just invest in that. i don't wasnt an ok mic just because i dont really have the money right now, only to have to buy a better one down the road.
but im reallly considering the 4047, and i need to buy something soon
i have my FIRST cd that i recorded and mixed commnig out for real, and not only am i beyond excited and its like a dream come true, but i want to impress everyone that hears it, and the AT2020 just wont do it. i have been using it for over a year, and it gives me a great sound when i mess with it a bunch, but the richness and body just arent there.

[jdjustice]

Originally Posted by Jazzy Alz

On almost all applications, I like the 4033's the better than 4050's

On guitar - 4050 sounds too bright and lacks soul (4033 beats it)
On Vox - 4050 sounds too bright for most singers/rappers (4033 beats it)

I'd buy a 4033 and a 4060

Totally agreed.

[uncle duncan]

Originally Posted by moon_unit

I'm kind of surprized by a lot of these responses. I'm sorry, but if you think the 4050 has a hyped high end, or is scooped in any way ... I can't help but think that you're deaf. Or just not very bright or observant. "Bright" and "scooped" are just not two adjectives that would ever cross my mind with that particular mic.

..

The 4050 has a 2db peak at 6k, goes back down, and then back up about 4db at 10K. It's not flat, but whether or not one would define it as 'hyped' would probably depend on the frame of reference. If you're comparing it to the source, the mic is hyped. If you're comparing it to a SM57, the mic is relatively natural sounding. The 4047 is up 3db at 6k, goes back down and then up again 2db at 10K, but the peaks are broader, which means the high end is less defined but more apparant. The mic also has a db more in the low end, so you have a warmer and also brighter sound. The 2020 is down 5db at 80, which would explain the lack of fullness, and the 4033 has a peak at 3k, 6k and 10k, so it's more midrangey. Whether or not the midrange sounds good depends on the source. So what are your gonna do? If you want 'full' I don't think you want the 4033. If you're doing acoustic music the 4050 might sound more natural (less sheen on the top end) if you're doing pop music the 4047 might give you more presence but less detail. (cymbal crash) Thank you very much.

[TheArchitect]

Originally Posted by Jazzy Alz

On almost all applications, I like the 4033's the better than 4050's

On guitar - 4050 sounds too bright and lacks soul (4033 beats it)
On Vox - 4050 sounds too bright for most singers/rappers (4033 beats it)

I'd buy a 4033 and a 4060

By the way, I'm interested in selling my AT4050 in mint condition, pm me if really want to buy one.

I have A/B'd the 4033 and the 4050 in cardoid mode and I found the 4033 to have more top end and is definitely thinner in the low end.

[mischultz]

Sort of a tangent: I know a lot of folks prefer the 4041 SDC over the 4051 because the top end's a little more mellow/neutral. Would the same comparison be valid between the 4040 and 4050?

Michael

[Naren]

Originally Posted by rufus13

I have AT4050/CM5's, which seem to be different enough from the current line "AT 4050" that A-T has re-specified the response.

Note that this series of freq response charts is at 12 inches. Closer will boost the bass and more distant (studio distances) will slightly attenuate treble.

When I hear something described as "scooped" or "bright" I want to see a smiley-face frequency response with plus-minus 9dB zig-zag, not the almost dead-flat AT-4050 between 30 Hz and 9KHz. When I want sound effects, I'm getting out the lo-fi collection of carbon/dynamic/crystal mic's included with 1950's/1960's consumer tape recorders. No need to buy new.

I'll open up one of my CM5's for close-up images if one of you all will do the same with a newer 4050 (shades of "Alien Autopsy").

Karl

Karl, thanks for that clarification. I have a pair of 4050 CM5s that I bought well over a decade ago. I was surprised to read descriptions that called this mic hyped, bright, scooped. I have always considered it a mostly neutral sounding mic with a touch of clarity (high end). Not the most exciting mic in the world, but sometimes that's just what you need. It's great for lispy, sibiliant, "spitty" singers where something like a U87 would not be appropriate. I think they make great room mics for drums as well, and even overheads - though I tend to use SDCs for the latter. And I'm glad there are people like you who have the necessary qualifications to take apart their microphones and check out what's going on inside. I wouldn't dare open mine up because for sure I'd screw something up!

-Naren

[Jazzy Alz]

Originally Posted by TheArchitect

I have A/B'd the 4033 and the 4050 in cardoid mode and I found the 4033 to have more top end and is definitely thinner in the low end.

You are obviously using a different set of ears.

[Seamus TM]

I love it when people get all testy about a floor tom mic.
Anyway, response charts are all well and good, but it depends much more on how it's achieved than anything.. same with any electronics that are put under obsessive microscopes.
If you boost a freq on an eq made by X and boost the same freq (same q, same point, same db) on eq made by Z, they will sound very different.
It's all in how it's achieved.
Same freq response in two different mics will, also, sound VERY different.
While the charts may give an idea about a mic's general ballpark, it says nothing of how well it achieves it.
SO, IMO, however those little high freq bumps are achieved on the 4050, make it sound very disappointing... IMO. It sounds cheap, to me... in a bad way.
The 4047 also sounds cheap to me, BUT I like the way it sounds.

Seamus