The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
MixPre 3: Microphone suggestions? Condenser Microphones
Old 12th December 2018
  #1
MixPre 3: Microphone suggestions?

Hi everyone.

I posted a question recently regarding portable recorders and the mixpre seems the most favoured by a distance.

i went through the other SD mixpre thread looking for mic recommendations but thought i should start another thread as others might be interested.

Now I am decided on the mixpre I am now looking at mics. In keeping with the mixpre itself I would prefer something portable. Ideally one mic (stereo?) or possibly two if they were very compact. I am just recording as a hobby so really hoping that the recommendations don't run into the thousands.

I would be more than happy to buy midrange mics to start (someone mentioned some DPA clones somewhere?) and see what sort of results I can get. Currently I have an AKG Blueline with a hypercardiod CK93 capsule, a 3U audio large condenser and a handful of dynamics. That's it.

I noticed that a pro sound recordist linked in the previous thread used the Senn MKH20 extensively (i am thinking an omni might be useful) and even a rode nt1 quite often as well.

As far as use goes - I'd be looking to record beaches, waves, markets, forests, perhaps traffic, some foley bits and bobs.

Really just interested to see what people have found to be a good match for the mixpre and how good the mics need to be to demonstrate (or at least not negate) the quality of the kashmir preamps.

Thanks in advance for any thoughts and suggestions.

Old 12th December 2018
  #2
Lives for gear
 
hbphotoav's Avatar
 

You haven’t mentioned genre... classical, folk, pop, rock, etc. If it was me, I’d look (and listen) closely at Line Audio CM3 (wide-ish cardioid) and OM1 (omni); and at Rode NT5 with both omni and cardioid capsules. Both sets are in the same price range. Both are decent mics, and for less money than used mics in the next tier.

One old guy’s opinion.

HB
Old 12th December 2018
  #3
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hbphotoav View Post
You haven’t mentioned genre... classical, folk, pop, rock, etc.
Actually the OP wrote "As far as use goes - I'd be looking to record beaches, waves, markets, forests, perhaps traffic, some foley bits and bobs."

Personally I wouldn't recommend the Line Audio mics for any of this: the CM-3 is super-sensitive to wind and handling noise so you'd need a Rycote blimp and windjammer, plus it's not the lowest-noise mic around. Similar for the OM-1 although I've experimented with a pair of them for ambient recordings.
Old 12th December 2018
  #4
Gear Maniac
 

Well, your AKG CK93 is a reasonable mic, and certainly of use for your Foley needs.

You could couple this (or another capsule, such as the cardioid CK91) with an AKG CK94 fig 8 mic to make a nice compact mid-side rig (and a lot cheaper than the MKH equivalent). The only thing is the CK94 is quite noisy (22dB-A), which could be problematic for quieter sounds.

Other not too expensive options include a pair of Rode NT55s, which would give you cardioid and omni caps. You might find spaced omni mics an interesting option compared to something more directional, esp. as you mention 'beaches, waves, markets, forests, perhaps traffic', and they are inherently more resistant to wind noise.

Talking of which, wind protection will be something you need to think about at the same time as thinking about types of mics. A complete blimp-style windshield offers the best reduction of wind noise, but those specially made for stereo pairs are typically very expensive (and, indeed, are designed for expensive mics). Rycote baby ball gags are an affordable alternative, and work well for spaced omni pairs and NOS pairs etc., but are hard to apply to ORTF and impossible for XY. Alternatively you can think laterally: I have put NT55 omnis end to end in a Rode blimp (Omni pair in blimp for recording ambience), which is very effective (and maintains the correct distance from the edge of the blimp: beware of jamming mics into undersized blimps, and losing their effectiveness). Or there is always DIY, such as my LDC blimp: DIY windshield for LDC mid-side pair

Cheers,

Roland
Old 13th December 2018
  #5
Lives for gear
 
hbphotoav's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bradh View Post
Actually the OP wrote "As far as use goes - I'd be looking to record beaches, waves, markets, forests, perhaps traffic, some foley bits and bobs."

Personally I wouldn't recommend the Line Audio mics for any of this: the CM-3 is super-sensitive to wind and handling noise so you'd need a Rycote blimp and windjammer, plus it's not the lowest-noise mic around. Similar for the OM-1 although I've experimented with a pair of them for ambient recordings.
So he did. My bad... skipped right over that. Been recording and mixing acoustic instruments all week. My mind went there. MKH8060 is seeing some use tonight (solo spot), and is acquitting itself well, but is likely too pricey. Decent and quiet and not too expensive would likely lead me to Rode...

Thanks. Cheers, and good luck!

HB
Old 13th December 2018
  #6
There really is lot to consider here. I didn't think I would need a blimp...oh man, that's not ideal for me. I had assumed that one of those dead rats looking things would be fine.

If folks here really think that they are necessary to make the most of the mixpre's preamps then I am probably going to rethink my purchase decision and reconsider going back something like the Zoom H6/Sony PCM D50/D100 for a decent if not professional recording. Anyone care to comment on field recording without the full blimp?

Thanks for mentioning rode - i have had a few of their mics in the past and remember them being very low noise.


thanks again - still thinking through options here...
Old 13th December 2018
  #7
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jjmmuir View Post
There really is lot to consider here. I didn't think I would need a blimp...oh man, that's not ideal for me. I had assumed that one of those dead rats looking things would be fine.
Just to be clear, when we're talking about noise in the context of needing a blimp, we're talking about wind noise, not the internal noise of a microphone or a preamp. When you're outside doing field recordings, wind will frequently be present and you need an effective way to minimize or eliminate wind noise from your recordings. A blimp provides the best protection, but a "dead cat" alone may do the trick in gentler breezes. But beaches tend to be windy places, and you might find a blimp necessary for recording waves unless you can catch them on a calm day or a sheltered spot.
Old 13th December 2018
  #8
Lives for gear
For SFX collection in all possible wind conditions a Blimp is pretty much non-negotiable. All of the lesser forms of wind protection (eg Dead Cat, foam windsocks etc) may or may not work, some of the time, depending on wind intensity and type of mic used.

If you're prepared to skip recording altogether on days when conditions are non-ideal, you may be able to escape with the lower-cost and less effective alternatives.

For me, being curtailed in that way (and not just for whole days or perhaps weeks at a time, or even more annoyingly, for unpredictable periods even within days which appear to be low-wind) would soon drive me crazy.

It all depends on whether you want to be able to venture out in all possible landscapes, on all reasonable weather days, and be confident of capturing non-overloaded audio samples....or the lower cost alternative ?

You pays (or don't pays) your money and reap accordingly
Old 13th December 2018
  #9
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jjmmuir View Post
I didn't think I would need a blimp...oh man, that's not ideal for me. I had assumed that one of those dead rats looking things would be fine.
You may not need a blimp. As I said, the Baby ball gags are an option as, indeed, are other slip-on systems such as Super-Softies etc. They may well be all you need. As Studer58 says, however, you will be limiting your options to ignore a blimp, esp. for exposed and typically areas like beaches (one of your proposed locations): I would never set off to record on a beach without a blimp. My example of a pair of NT55 omni mics in a Rode blimp was a pretty affordable - but entirely effective - approach that would cover you for such windy locations and it is easily portable (just bung it in a small rucksack if needs be).

Inadequate wind protection isn't purely an issue for a decent recorder: it will be just as evident on a cheaper recorder and, of course, handheld recorders with in-built mics are very problematic in significant wind (those furry windjammers that half cover them can only do so much).

Cheers,

Roland
Old 14th December 2018
  #10
This is all great advice.

Regarding my thought to return to cheaper options I was merely thinking that my stealth recording plan was slower but surely moving from inexpensive / portable to expensive/not that portable. The fact is though that unlike pros I have the luxury of waiting for perfect conditions (and Hong Kong is far less windy than other places I've lived) so I proceed for now as before w the mixpre and consider a blimp as and when. Thank you again for clarifying guys.

Regarding mics - is a single stereo mic or 2 single mics preferred for the field. I'm thinking mono recording wouldn't be so common.

Any further suggestions welcome. If there was a mic that was considerably better/highly recommended/future-proof/long warranty I would consider that whatever the price.

Jeremy
Old 14th December 2018
  #11
Lives for gear
It's highly likely that as you persist in outdoor recording you will eventually require a blimp-type enclosure, whether Rycote, Rode or other design...so the skill is in not spending as much money on the multiple interim coverings as you would have done if you'd simply bought a blimp at the outset (and effectively avoided paying 2x as much for the same final device !)
Old 19th December 2018
  #12
Hi - any users of the Uši Pro microphones. They look quite good - super portable with low self noise. The clips through even an H6 sound good.

Any first hand experience?

Thanks
Old 19th December 2018
  #13
Lives for gear
 
jimjazzdad's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjmmuir View Post
Hi - any users of the Uši Pro microphones. They look quite good - super portable with low self noise. The clips through even an H6 sound good.

Any first hand experience?

Thanks
It would be interesting to hear more about anyone on GS who has experience with LOM and Uši.
Bratislava's LOM is bringing affordable field recording to the masses
I had never hear of these mics until your post. I assume this is a small-scale producer similar to Line Audio...would love to hear of anyone's first hand experience.
Old 19th December 2018
  #14
Gear Maniac
 

As far as I am aware, and has been much reported elsewhere, the LOM Uši Pro makes use of the EM172 omni capsule made by Primo. This can be bought as a bare capsule for DIY use and as ready-made mics in various forms by LOM and others - Audiotalaia in Spain (Omnidirectional Microphones (ECM172 Capsules) - audiotalaia ) and Micbooster/FEL Communications Ltd in the UK (Primo EM172 Microphone Capsule - micbooster.com). Being in the UK I have used the latter for bare capsules and for their ready-made Clippy mics, and its website has more info about the EM172 capsules (inc. the data sheet) than the others.

Cheers,

Roland
Old 20th December 2018
  #15
Quote:
Originally Posted by norfolksoundman9 View Post
As far as I am aware, and has been much reported elsewhere, the LOM Uši Pro makes use of the EM172 omni capsule made by Primo. This can be bought as a bare capsule for DIY use and as ready-made mics in various forms by LOM and others - Audiotalaia in Spain (Omnidirectional Microphones (ECM172 Capsules) - audiotalaia ) and Micbooster/FEL Communications Ltd in the UK (Primo EM172 Microphone Capsule - micbooster.com). Being in the UK I have used the latter for bare capsules and for their ready-made Clippy mics, and its website has more info about the EM172 capsules (inc. the data sheet) than the others.

Cheers,

Roland
Thanks for the further info. I still can't find any reports on the quality/durability/value of these mics anywhere though.

Any users here with a comment on their quality and noise floor?
Old 20th December 2018
  #16
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jjmmuir View Post
Thanks for the further info. I still can't find any reports on the quality/durability/value of these mics anywhere though.

Any users here with a comment on their quality and noise floor?
If you search for Primo EM172 you will find plenty out there, mainly from the perspective of nature recording. The noise floor is as per the specs (14dBA), which are given here (with a link to the data sheet): Primo EM172 Microphone Capsule - micbooster.com. This is, of course, far better than the self-noise of a lav mic.

In terms of quality, I use the Clippy mics for those rare occasions where I need a very discreet/miniature set up or where I am playing around with DIY ideas for ambient/nature recording, but am not overly convinced for music: others are happier. It may be that the voltage I was supplying via PIP was a bit low. But at £11.58 for a bare capsule, through to the still inexpensive manufactured options, they are definitely worth buying to assess yourself.

Cheers,

Roland
Old 13th January 2019
  #17
Quote:
Originally Posted by norfolksoundman9 View Post
If you search for Primo EM172 you will find plenty out there, mainly from the perspective of nature recording. The noise floor is as per the specs (14dBA), which are given here (with a link to the data sheet): Primo EM172 Microphone Capsule - micbooster.com. This is, of course, far better than the self-noise of a lav mic.

In terms of quality, I use the Clippy mics for those rare occasions where I need a very discreet/miniature set up or where I am playing around with DIY ideas for ambient/nature recording, but am not overly convinced for music: others are happier. It may be that the voltage I was supplying via PIP was a bit low. But at £11.58 for a bare capsule, through to the still inexpensive manufactured options, they are definitely worth buying to assess yourself.

Cheers,

Roland
Thanks Roland - yes I got some from micboosters and they're great I think. Produce a clean, hot signal. Super portable and discrete...and if you lose them it's not the end of the world.
Old 13th January 2019
  #18
Decided on a stereo mic...but which one? This comparison is useful when comparing three mid rangers
VP88, NT4 and BP4025. Level normalized up to 0dB by Icetest | Free Listening on SoundCloud

Interested to know if the AT 2022 would produce acceptable results...and what would be the next step up from the BP4025? I wonder whether the difference in quality would be noticeable enough for the price hike. Particularly for a hobbyist.

Any recommendation or links to sound files much appreciated.
JEremy
Old 14th January 2019
  #19
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jjmmuir View Post
Decided on a stereo mic...but which one? This comparison is useful when comparing three mid rangers
VP88, NT4 and BP4025. Level normalized up to 0dB by Icetest | Free Listening on SoundCloud

Interested to know if the AT 2022 would produce acceptable results...and what would be the next step up from the BP4025? I wonder whether the difference in quality would be noticeable enough for the price hike. Particularly for a hobbyist.

Any recommendation or links to sound files much appreciated.
JEremy
You may want to wait on your recorder decision until the new Sony PCM-D10 is released.

D10 Linear PCM-Recorder D Series | PCM-D10 | Sony MY

If the mics are as good as the D100, and you put the recorder on a pistol grip, that setup might be adequate for you for the first while.

Since it has xlr inputs, you can add your mics later.

I have the BP4025 and I think it sounds quite good. So easy to use in the field.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #20
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogmusic View Post
You may want to wait on your recorder decision until the new Sony PCM-D10 is released.

D10 Linear PCM-Recorder D Series | PCM-D10 | Sony MY

If the mics are as good as the D100, and you put the recorder on a pistol grip, that setup might be adequate for you for the first while.

Since it has xlr inputs, you can add your mics later.

I have the BP4025 and I think it sounds quite good. So easy to use in the field.
That looks awesome! XLR ins are a big plus...

though I should have mentioned that I bought a MIXPRE 3 so, just need a stereo mic. Hopefully an inexpensive one.

Thanks
Old 4 weeks ago
  #21
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jjmmuir View Post
Decided on a stereo mic...but which one? This comparison is useful when comparing three mid rangers
VP88, NT4 and BP4025. Level normalized up to 0dB by Icetest | Free Listening on SoundCloud

Interested to know if the AT 2022 would produce acceptable results...and what would be the next step up from the BP4025? I wonder whether the difference in quality would be noticeable enough for the price hike. Particularly for a hobbyist.

Any recommendation or links to sound files much appreciated.
JEremy
Hi Jeremy,

Glad you have some EM172/Clippy mics.

Re the three stereo mics, Magnús Bergsson's discussion of his tests that you linked to on Soundcloud (Stereo microphone comparison | HLJODMYND - SOUNDIMAGE) sums matters up usefully. To his comments about the practical advantages of the BP4025 for nature recording, you should also think about how easy it would be to give any of these mics decent wind protection: I know you weren't keen on buying a blimp straight away, but you will need to face up to this soon(!), and the BP4025 is the easiest in this regard (e.g. with v affordable Rode blimp v2). Here's a link to a video of someone using it with a Rode blimp and Mixpre-3: YouTube

Cheers,

Roland
Old 4 weeks ago
  #22
Quote:
Originally Posted by norfolksoundman9 View Post
Hi Jeremy,

Glad you have some EM172/Clippy mics.

Re the three stereo mics, Magnús Bergsson's discussion of his tests that you linked to on Soundcloud (Stereo microphone comparison | HLJODMYND - SOUNDIMAGE) sums matters up usefully. To his comments about the practical advantages of the BP4025 for nature recording, you should also think about how easy it would be to give any of these mics decent wind protection: I know you weren't keen on buying a blimp straight away, but you will need to face up to this soon(!), and the BP4025 is the easiest in this regard (e.g. with v affordable Rode blimp v2). Here's a link to a video of someone using it with a Rode blimp and Mixpre-3: YouTube

Cheers,

Roland
Very helpful as always Roland - thanks. Wary of the some of the comments not liking the BP4025 so much on music. I have a studio too and am looking at use the stereo music for guitars etc. Magnús Bergsson;s site is brilliant.

Any other options?
Old 4 weeks ago
  #23
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jjmmuir View Post
Very helpful as always Roland - thanks. Wary of the some of the comments not liking the BP4025 so much on music. I have a studio too and am looking at use the stereo music for guitars etc. Magnús Bergsson;s site is brilliant.

Any other options?
I can't claim to have much experience of stereo mics and for both your initial planned use of recording of 'beaches, waves, markets, forests, perhaps traffic, some foley bits and bobs' and the music studio/guitar use you are now adding most here will be using individual mics (or pairs and more thereof). Certainly the BP4025 has an unusual pattern which doubtless explains the trouble people have had when using it for music. But that said, even a more conventional stereo mic, like the NT4, would very probably soon prove limiting to you for music recording.

Cheers,

Roland
Old 4 weeks ago
  #24
Gear Nut
 

I've used the BP4025 for several years. It is dead quiet and, when used with a dead cat for windy conditions, works very well in field recordings, which is AT's published intent for this mic.

On occasion, I'll put it atop my videocamera for run-and-gun and personal projects. For a one man band, the mic works well for this purpose, at least on distant sound sources. It does sound weird indeed on close sources, and I don't like it (nor do I use it) for music recording.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #25
Quote:
Originally Posted by norfolksoundman9 View Post
I can't claim to have much experience of stereo mics and for both your initial planned use of recording of 'beaches, waves, markets, forests, perhaps traffic, some foley bits and bobs' and the music studio/guitar use you are now adding most here will be using individual mics (or pairs and more thereof). Certainly the BP4025 has an unusual pattern which doubtless explains the trouble people have had when using it for music. But that said, even a more conventional stereo mic, like the NT4, would very probably soon prove limiting to you for music recording.

Cheers,

Roland
Yes, perhaps expecting too much from a single mic.

I took the clippy mics down to the beach today to see what they sounded like and how sensitive to wind they were. (posted another thread so others can hear) In fact, even without the windjammer there was no noticeable wind noise (only the light breeze today).

Given that these mics sound fine. I'm now thinking two small condensers (NT5s, Nt55s, Line audio, sennheiser, neumann) with switchable capsules might be the way to go.

That way the choice is far greater (stereo mics are not a popular choice it seems) and they would have many more uses.

Just need to find something with low noise and I should be fine.
Thanks for the advice thus far.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #26
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jjmmuir View Post
I'm now thinking two small condensers (NT5s, Nt55s, Line audio, sennheiser, neumann) with switchable capsules might be the way to go.

That way the choice is far greater (stereo mics are not a popular choice it seems) and they would have many more uses.

Just need to find something with low noise and I should be fine.
Well what you go for will largely come down to budget: Sennheiser MKH mics (esp. a MS pairing of MKH 30/40) are popular for field recording, easy to fit in a single blimp, great at dealing with high humidity, and would be my first choice. But they are not cheap. The Line Audio mics, at the other end of the spectrum, do not have interchangeable capsules and, I would suggest, are not so well suited to nature/ambient recording: rather than buy pairs of both OM1 and CM3 mics, I think a pair of NT55s would be more use and, in the UK at least, slightly cheaper.

Budget aside, omni mics are often under-utilized for nature/ambient recording, but they can be very effective either as a simple spaced pair (as with your Clippy mic test) or in rather different arrays: here is a website that I found a useful starting point - with others - some years ago: MinnesotaSoundscapes.com

Let us know what you buy and how you get on.

Cheers,

Roland
Old 4 weeks ago
  #27
Lives for gear
Cardioids are far likelier to suffer from non-windscreened air and breeze-blasting than omnis, so maybe go for the latter (or else sufficiently effective blimp/Rycote type of baffling if you don't get either omnis or switchable capsules.

Last edited by studer58; 4 weeks ago at 03:00 PM..
Old 2 weeks ago
  #28
Gear Head
 

Sounds like you've already made some decisions, but for others reading later... I do field recording, and I have a MixPre-6. I have a pair of CM3's and a pair of OM1's. The CM3s are as described pretty sensitive to wind - I have Baby Ball Gags with the associated fuzzy covers. Thus equipped the CM3s do just fine. I found that the BBGs by themselves are not sufficient. The CM3s are wide cardioids, and as such they do render more precise stereo images than the OM1s - as you would expect for cardioids. The OM1s are considerably less sensitive to wind, although they're not immune (no mics are immune). I've used the OM1s with the included foam wind screens and had reasonable wind resistance. Of course the OM1s inside the BBGs and fuzzy are even less sensitive to wind than the CM3s. The OM1s are omnis are better suited when the content is heavily weighted to the lower frequencies as some machinery and factory sounds. I'm pretty satisfied with the Line Audio mics. I presume that there are better ones out there, but I don't particularly feel the need to invest heavily to do so.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #29
Quote:
Originally Posted by blwatlongwood View Post
Sounds like you've already made some decisions, but for others reading later... I do field recording, and I have a MixPre-6. I have a pair of CM3's and a pair of OM1's. The CM3s are as described pretty sensitive to wind - I have Baby Ball Gags with the associated fuzzy covers. Thus equipped the CM3s do just fine. I found that the BBGs by themselves are not sufficient. The CM3s are wide cardioids, and as such they do render more precise stereo images than the OM1s - as you would expect for cardioids. The OM1s are considerably less sensitive to wind, although they're not immune (no mics are immune). I've used the OM1s with the included foam wind screens and had reasonable wind resistance. Of course the OM1s inside the BBGs and fuzzy are even less sensitive to wind than the CM3s. The OM1s are omnis are better suited when the content is heavily weighted to the lower frequencies as some machinery and factory sounds. I'm pretty satisfied with the Line Audio mics. I presume that there are better ones out there, but I don't particularly feel the need to invest heavily to do so.
In fact, no. No decision yet made. I'm taking my time...and continuing to record with the primo EM 172s...which are surprisingly good. I have abandoned the idea of the stereo mic as I'd like a matched pair for the home studio as well...so I'm looking at the CM3s, the Rode Nt5s or perhaps the MHBO 440s. I'd love to consider the Senn MKH 8040s but in reality I just can't justify the price. The KM184s would be a possibility but I'm assuming that one of the first three choices would offer similar quality.

Thanks for your notes on the wind protection as well....I am kind of resigned to getting a blimp in the short to medium term now and your experience further confirms the thinking.

Any further experience/feedback/recommendations would be great

Thanks
Old 4 days ago
  #30
Gear Head
 

I should have mentioned that I also have a pair of binaural mics that, as far as I know, use the EM-172 capsules. They certainly produce a lot more output (easily 18dB more, possibly more than that) than either of the Line Audio designs. Because they are binaurals I use them much less often (I am first a photographer and secondly a field recordist). I find that they are moderately subject to wind too, requiring some form of wind protection in more than a breeze. As with the CM3s, the low end response is good but somewhat rolled off compared to the OM1.

Last year I did some waves on the Outer Banks of NC, and I had no trouble doing that with the CM3s in the BBG/dead cats. For non-locals, the Outer Banks are where the Wright Brothers first flew, primarily because it's ALWAYS windy in the vicinity. The day I did that had constant 15-20mph winds with gusts probably into the 30's. On the recordings you can hear the gusts as such, but not the steady winds.

I have also used the CM3s on top of the tender of a steam locomotive, and the train had (and reached) a speed limit of 25mph, so pretty much the entire trip had wind at 25mph or slightly higher. Listening to the recording I doubt anyone but the most careful listener would hear the wind; it definitely doesn't make itself obvious.

I've also used them in Great Dismal Swamp, which is inland and has little wind. In this case the part that's stressed is gain, in which the Line Audios are not leaders. Nonetheless, I had pretty much no trouble at all getting clean sound, since the MixPre-6 has good preamps with plenty of gain. I captured well above normal sensitivity and use the output turned down to normal levels. (I don't know what audio folks call this; in photography we call it "expose to the right" to get as much signal as possible without clipping.)

At NASCAR races, I've used the OM1s rather than the CM3s, since these produce tremendous amounts of low frequency energy. I put them in the BBG/cat to avoid having to think about it, although I don't think that was necessary. Gain wasn't a problem in this case - since I was within about 40 feet of the racing line most of the time, the relatively low sensitivity worked in my favor and I didn't need a pad.

I really haven't had any situations in which the Line Audios have failed to get what I was after.
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
ADLondon / Music For Picture
0
spacedyevest28 / Live Sound
9
towerofbabel / Low End Theory
11
markblasco / So much gear, so little time
0

Forum Jump
Forum Jump