expensive vs. affordable rig solution and why?

[desotoslo]

Hi Folks

I am trying to get my mobile recording rig up and going.

I currently have a Schoeps CMT 34 which sounds gorgeous (and am thinking about selling). I can either add another CMT 34 to this and make a pair (I found a CMT 35 that would work for that), or reserve this lone CMT for personal, albeit mono, studio work only, and spring for a different stereo pair of SDC instead.

The big two (mc930 and ksm 141) are of course top on my list. (too bad the c42 has 21 db noise.)

So I'm looking for your advice. Should I augment my Schoeps or go for a fresh stereo pair? I'd love a stereo pair of Schoeps, and would love to say I use Schoeps, but honestly, I think most of the people I'd be recording for wouldn't know it from a hole in their head.

I can only afford one of these solutions right now. I'm lusting over completing my Schoeps to stereo, but am thinking practically, it'd be nice to have a good set for location stuff that would provide very nice results (ala mc930 or ksm 141). on a side note, is the 137/141 good for distance miking?

Should I even be concerned about having name cache at this point (for potential clients), or just go for a solid, good solution?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.
David

[Shadow_7]

If you need the name brands for those higher paying gigs, then by all means use them. But most of the people I record for are happy if you don't clip at the loud points. Since they can't seem to get past that with any of their gear. It really depends on what constitutes your average gig. Or what sort of persona / product you wish to deliver. If your average gig is a bar at minimum wage, it'd be a little risky to use the good stuff IMO.

[desotoslo]

Thanks, Shadow7.

I'm mostly curious how much people play the name game, for mid level gigs? I'm not recording any super expensive stuff. I'm just getting into the field, but will be working with classical musicians.

Since I have little experience, I don't know what the playing field is like.

Cheers

[BrianHanke]

I think the KSM141s would be an excellent choice. I had a pair of KSM109s a while ago and I was quite pleased with them. They sound relatively uncolored and are very durable. It would be great to have the cardioid/omni option of the 141s.

It's true that name-dropping can be impressive to clients, although I don't know that the Schoeps brand would be recognizable to your average customer. I certainly hadn't heard of them until I got into recording. Neumann is the name that people go crazy over. I guess it depends on who usually uses your services!

[NorseHorse]

Most people I work with have no idea what Neumann or Schoeps are. And frankly, they shouldn't care. It's the engineer's job to pick the gear. Go with whatever is going to be most USEFUL to you.

(This is one reason I don't list my gear on my website. A gear list is pretty much meaningless to potential clients. I only started reading "gear lists" after I had my own gear and wanted to compare - I should just be listening to the samples.)

[desotoslo]

Cool. Thank you for the replies Brian and NorseHorse. This is very useful for me to hear!

Hmm... so by this logic, the KSM 141 may just be a smarter choice, though I've read opinions stating that the don't have much depth, or not as much as the 930s. decisions decisions.

I can be all selfish and just use my Schoeps for my personal and studio commercial work.

[videoteque]

Hmm... so by this logic, the KSM 141 may just be a smarter choice, though I've read opinions stating that the don't have much depth, or not as much as the 930s

You seem to live in USA. The KSM 141 has a cardiodid/omni switch and probably cost less than the 930. What are you thinking about???

There is no perfect mic, buy one pair and learn to USE IT WELL. It will make much more difference than 1dB at 2500Hz...

[Recording David]

Originally Posted by desotoslo

...too bad the c42 has 21 db noise....

Going by the spec sheet alone is misleading. The C42 is a fantastic mic, and especially fantastic given the price. I have used these many times for classical work, and solo classical guitar, and I never considered them to be a noisy mic.

[desotoslo]

Thanks David. How would the c42 fair with distant miking of ensembles?

I've read some people around here mention a good amount of hiss, but you say otherwise, or does it depend on the application?

[Recording David]

I have used the C42 either with an A-Designs Pacifica or a DAV BG2 preamp. Used for distant miking I never found any hiss issues. The other mic in your price range you might consider is the Neumann TLM-193. Great mics and exceptionally quiet.

[fifthcircle]

I would tend to disagree on the C42... Good sounding mic, but way too noisy for classical work. My pair has (unfortunately) been relegated to rock and PA work where the noise floor is not as much of an issue...

At that general price range, I'd probably look at something like the Audio Technica 4050 as an all-purpose mic. It ain't a schoeps, but I've gotten great results out of them in the past.

--Ben

[Corran]

One unlucky thing that I have run into with a certain area, is one (influential) person knowing the name "Neumann" and sometimes "Schoeps" and assuming I'm not pro because I do not use them. There definitely is something to be said to have the right name. But of course you can make really great recordings with others.

Anyway, if I had your choice I'd probably go with the Shure just for the omni/cardioid switching capability. If you are actually spending a little more then you have more options. If you are hyper-sensitive about noise they might not be for you, but I use a couple pairs of Earthworks mics to great success. I sometimes just de-noise the tracks a slight amount.

[NorseHorse]

PS. It always helps to have ACCESS to Neumann if you want.

I do, and it's nice to know that if someone ever asked me, "Are you going to use a u87 on us?!" I could respond with, "I've got one available, but I have some mics that will work even better for you..."

Luckily, I haven't run into any blinded-by-name-brand clients yet.

[jnorman]

i dont have a single client who knows mics at all. i have owned DPAs, schoeps, neumanns, etc, and it never made any difference to anyone. clients have selected AT4051s over DPA 4011s and schoeps cmc64s on critical projects, and have been unable to hear any difference between HV3 preamps and mackie preamps, so i really do not put any particular emphasis on brands at this point.

perhaps the best affordable mics i have ever run into were used pairs of AKG C481s which i picked up for $900/pair - extremely under-appreciated mics, IMO. the beyer MC930s and the new MC910 omnis are also likely to be very good mics for the money. vintage km84s, which can be very very good for classical and acoustic applications, have now unfortunately priced themselves out of the market place.

[Shadow_7]

I guess I'm going through the buffet line backwards. Coming from the POV of a musician who's looking for gear that best suits THIS musician and HIS group(s). Names have virtually no bearing on my goal. Except in the sense that I could resale the gear I don't like at costs or a marginal profit, without taking a year or more to do so. Or otherwise giving it away just to be rid of it.

I started off with an M-Audio Mobile Pre and an AT4033a. It sounded pretty killer on steel string guitar with high end converters / preamps. But for my uses, was too colored to use much. I just want to record, not spend 8x's longer than the recording tweaking the EQ and other improvements in post. So I upgraded to some Avenson STO-2's, which were the first flat frequency response mics for me. And I got a Korg MR-1000 to improve my mobility.

The Avensons sound killer on Trombone (what I play) in proximity. But when used as a stereo pair from a distance, the other traits kick in and makes them less suited for my purposes. And for at least one brass band I recorded a rehearsal of, it almost sounded 40's radio-ish. So I'm up to or over to Shure SM-81's to address some of the other issues, noise floor, power requirements, polar pattern, yada yada yada. And they're good enough for now. Not the end of the road, but compared to some of the commercial entities that have recorded me in the past with less specialized gear, it's already better than that IMO.

I guess what I'm really trying to say, is it depends on WHAT you are recording and WHO you are recording for. As long as you can deliver a product that the client is happy with, it really doesn't matter what you're using. Except to a select few who have some limited knowledge on the gear involved. And those are generally not shy about letting you know what they want and expect.

[videoteque]

Luckily, I haven't run into any blinded-by-name-brand clients yet.

If you find one, propose him to rent the mics he wants, he will like your mics in no time!!!

[desotoslo]

A well known audio engineer was recommending the Josephson C42 as an affordable stereo pair. He admires David Josephson's work. He likes the fact that the design of the C42s is a rather pure design, how the mic is not electronically EQ'd and such as a way to make up for lower noise specs. (Going lower with noise takes away transient response, so manufacturers tend to EQ the bottom and top ends of the mic.) He also mentioned there are things that can be done to lower the noise with the C42, but didn't go into too much detail there.

This thread and his recommendation has really got me interested in them as a (semi) affordable location pair.

If anyone would like to share some samples I'd love to hear them!

David

[Brian Middleton]

Originally Posted by Recording David

The other mic in your price range you might consider is the Neumann TLM-193. Great mics and exceptionally quiet.

I don't know if it's reasonable to say the TLM193 is in the same price range as the MC930s or KSM141s, though. At least not here in the US, where a pair of TLM193s will run you 3x the price of the Beyers and 4x the price of the Shures.

[Recording David]

^^ Sorry, should have said - I meant used 193s!

[desotoslo]

Hi

Pardon my sawed-off-shotgun approach to this thread, but I'd like to ask:

is a 4 mic setup the highly recommended way to go for location ensemble work? that'd be a main cardiod ORTF pair and omni outriggers?

I've been thinking about going for cream of the crop of the main stereo pair (senn 8040 or Schoeps).

Problem is at the moment I only have two channels of DAV and Apogee. Considering picking up an Apogee ensemble second hand, and some omnis in addition to the stereo mains, but of course, this is like a shitload of money...

Thoughts? graci and gracias

[Recording David]

Yes, ORTF plus a pair of omni outriggers is great. If you only have 2 channels of Apogee why not use a small mixer and go direct to stereo instead of shelling out for lots of converter channels? If you're recording ensembles small enough where ORTF+2 is used this isn't a risky option, and promotes good session discipline.

Edit: Looking again I see you only have 2 channels of DAV, so my solution doesn't altogether work...

[fifthcircle]

Depends on the ensemble.... A main pair with outriggers gives you a much wider image. For mid size and larger ensembles, this is a good thing. For a small intimate ensemble, it may not be.

I work in a bunch of halls that have mains and flanks installed and for some of the shows, the flanks add a touch of ambience and to firm up the low end, but the level is very low (often 15dB or more lower than the mains). I would loose almost nothing if they weren't there...

--Ben

[7rojo7]

I lost a gig because I didn't have any Neumann mics (sad but true) even though I have 3 schoeps mk21 3 mk5 a pair of Brauner VM1s a pair of Valvets and a trio of PhantomVs, go figure.

[jnorman]

recording david - submixing to 2 tracks can be fine - IF you have the ability to properly monitor on-site. however, it is often very problemmatic trying to monitor onsite, due to little or no isolation from the performance. headphones dont always translate as well as you would want, and it can be very hard to fix an unbalanced 2 track mix back in the studio. better to find a 4 track solution if poss.