Hi,

I want to buy a new microphone. I already have a couple of microphones: an Oktava mk012 and Oktava mk319. I wanted a microphone clearer than the 319, but large diaphragm. Use the microphone to record only acoustic guitars and a few voices. I want a hot microphone but with good response in high frequencies. I was thinking of buying or the AKG c214, Oktava MK102, MK105 or the bluebird Any advice?

Thank you very much.

modded by oktava mod?????

that may give you what you want.

You're right, it might be an option. Any more suggestion?

Thanks

Honestly the BLUE Dragonfly would be an excellent pick for what you ask for.

War

Yes.
Otherwise, if you want "clear", some AT mics are worth checking, or a Beyer mc740 if you can find one.

the bluebird is certainly decent. can be had for cheap as well.

U87

Plus one I love mine and it's a great mic with a tube
or darker preamp. I've got more expensive mic's but still
love the Bluebird. Try it with a Blue Robbie.

Daniel

Hi,

Thanks for the post. Bluebird is true condenser or electrec? which is the diameter of the diaphragm? not too sharp?

Don't tell anyone, but the mk012 is one of the greatest vocal mics of all time.


Gregory Scott - ubk
.

Well the secret is out now! This is true. Every day I final test several large diaphragm mics and an equal number of '012 mics. Every time I run through my vocal test with them I think "damn, if people would only use these as vocal mics in addition to OH or accoustic guitar duties!"

They are very pop prone - so use a large pop filter or even better two pop filters with an air gap. This is a classic Motown vocal sound.

wow!..coming from you Greg....that's some stop-the-press biness!!.


..are we talking just stock..or modded?

I have just a couple of mk012, but I suppose you mean the mk012 modified. Perhaps I should think about acquiring a modified one.

Now I am confused between the bluebird and a modified mk012. The mk012 not be too thin and sharp?

Thanks

I'm talking about a stock 012, I've never used a modded one but I imagine I'd like it even more.

Michael is dead-on, I'll be even more dramatic about it: these mics are absurdly prone to massive plosives from even the tiniest puff of air. Pop filtration is a must.

But this is a good thing, because it encourages you to do the right thing: back the hell off the vocal mic. I like the mouth being 18-24" away; I also like to point the mic up about 45 degrees, and I have the singer sing 'over' the mic. Personally, I sing almost towards the ceiling for some notes, because that's where the sound blooms the most in my room (god bless vaulted ceilings).

The combination of the mic being an sdc with focused low mids, pointed a bit off-axis from the singer, and picking up the bloom of the room, makes for the easiest vocal sound I've ever had. It just drops into the mix, way less compression and no eq needed at all.

There, the secret is indeed out. Fortunately, I don't think too many people are reading this thread (no classic neumann's in the title) heh .


Gregory Scott - ubk
.

In the Funk Brothers movie there are some great vintage film and still photos from the "Snake Pit" at Motown. One of my favorite shots is of Smokey Robinson singing his heart out toward a KM 54 suspended up and away from him as you suggest.

Okay, it got my attention when U B K and Joly both applauded this mic that highly.
I checked it out and this mic isn't very expensive. Its $275 at Front End Audio and Zen Pro Audio.
How does this mic compare to the Beyer MC930 im planning to get?

Beyer is a good choice for Acoustic Guitars, orchestras, symphonic, but I have not tried it with vocals. Is an electrec mic, not true condenser, MK012 is true condenser, a little scooped and clear.

The Beyer is a true condenser.

Recording/ studio

Honestly, I would choose the Beyer for more clean-ish type of recording and the Oktava would win on most things rock and pop.

War

Cheers for that Greg-VERY interesting,will have to try mine on vox soon.

However, my room isn't great so will probably adapt that technique a little..



F

Thaks! i´m mistaken

NP.

Hi Warren, I might just have to get a pair for AG, OH and maybe Vocals.
Looks like there is several different types of MK-012's on your site. Which
is the best for the money? Check the link below to see the different types.

ZenPro Audio: Gear Now & Zen - Search

You may be right, but don't be afraid to at least try it first without hedging your bets; and for god's sake, don't evaluate the sound by itself in solo. Drop it in the context of a roughly fleshed out arrangement, and listen to how it *mixes* as opposed to how it sounds.

In my experience, sounds recorded with good mic distance in a crap room are easier to mix, and produce a more interesting recording, than sounds that are mic'd too close in a crap room. In the latter case all you're doing is downplaying useful crap and trading it in for useless crap.

You can try to fool mother nature, but really you can't. As Homer Simpson once said, "In THIS house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!"

Or maybe a more appropriate quote from Jimmy Page is in order: "Emotion happens in the room."


Gregory Scott - ubk
.

Listen to this guy!

He quotes both Homer Simpson AND Jimmy Page in ONE post!

Great stuff! ...and also worth a try!

Somewhere I saw a photograph of Patsy Cline recording vocals into two SDC's mounted about 2 feet up - diagonally from her and she's postured like she's crooning to the moon or thanking the morning sun for deliverance after a long, lonely night..

I love this stuff.

This isn't the photo I was thinking of but it's kind of the same idea..

I like this Homers quote:
"Son, if you really want something in this life, you have to work for it. Now quiet! They're about to announce the lottery numbers. "

You can find them here on this forum (used) for under a hundred bucks. I did it twice.

Y'know, it's actually not. heh

In that photo what you have is the standard LDC with 24" placement, aimed at the singer's mouth (or in this case the singer's nose, which is great for getting a tone with more cut). The only difference between this and what everyone else does is that the mic is up high and aimed down, but it's still capturing what everyone typically captures.

What I'm talking about is having the mic at face level, 24" out, but angled up about 45 degrees so it's actually pointed at the ceiling, not at the singer. The singer sings up as well, so they're not singing into the mic, they're singing into the room and the mic is picking up the room. The mic is also picking up the singer but it's doing so off-axis, which results in a skewed frequency response and tonal coloration. What you get is a whole lot of air and space and clarity, a very intimate sound, with none of that artificial in-your-face hype that dominates production these days. The word that comes to mind is 'natural'.

It may sound like minor differences but it's actually a radically different technique, placement, and pickup.

Great photo of Patsy, though!


Gregory Scott - ubk
.