|
|
Joined:
August 2002
Posts: 623
Location: Lake Hiawatha, New Jersey | Hey Gang...
I'm getting a digital multitrack recorder within the next week or so, and was hoping someone would have a great suggestion for a condenser mic in the "under $300" range that would suite well for recording vocals and acoustic guitar. Someone mentioned an akg c1000 or c3000. Any input here?
Thanks a bunch! |
|
| |
|
Joined:
February 2002
Posts: 5750
Location: Scotland | There's any number of mikes in that range these days. My advice would be to stick to any of the established brands such as AKG, Beyer Dynamic, or Audio Technica. Some of the budget stuff like SE Electronics, Superlux, Marshall & the like are decent enough for the money but that's all. It's worth spending the extra on a mike if you can afford it, even if it means buying used. I've seen AKG 414's for around $300 on ebay. Also a good preamp will make a huge improvement to any mike. The AKG's you mentioned are both good mikes. I personally prefer the Rode NT3 over the AKG C1000. The Rode NT2 is a nice bit of kit also.
Paul |
|
| |
|
Joined:
December 2001
Posts: 7222
Location: The Great Pacific Northwest | I HIGHLY recommend the Rode NT-2. For about the same price as the other in that price range, it is about TWICE the microphone IMHO. The next step up (for about $700) is the Nuemann TLM 103. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
August 2002
Posts: 623
Location: Lake Hiawatha, New Jersey | Paul and Miles,
Thank you so very much for your input and guidance. Not knowing much at all on the subject, your tips have given me some good direction, and I've been researching on the net like a madman for prices and info.
Thanks a whole bunch!
John |
|
| |
|
Joined:
February 2002
Posts: 613
Location: Zion, Illinois | This months Home Recording Magazine did a review of three large-diaphragm condensers under $300. Of the three the reviewer liked the least expensive one the best: Samson C01 for $149.
The one mic I use most often isn't a condenser but it is a standard workhorse of a mic: a Shure SM-57.
BTW, which digital recorder are you getting?
Bradley |
|
| |
|
Joined:
August 2002
Posts: 623
Location: Lake Hiawatha, New Jersey | Bradley-
Thanks for your input as well.
I am getting the new Zoom 1266CD. It's an upgraded version of the 1044CD-has more features and is even easier to use, with 24 bit processing/16 bit linear uncompressed data.
The thing that attracted to me to this one over the others is that it has a self contained PROGRAMABLE drum/bass machine with 12 touch sensitive pads and 50 kits(24 bass sounds) which sound decent. Also you can record a song at the time of inspiration and later fine tune the drum programming-which is great for a "drummer" like me!
Also it has 6 channel simultaneous recording, built in effects, including amp modeling...etc
This is a fantastic unit for what I need, recording original solo demos at home. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
February 2002
Posts: 613
Location: Zion, Illinois | Strummin12,
I just look on the internet at the Zoom 1266CD. Looks like a fantastic machine.
It's really amazing what a person can get now. Back in the early 70's I dished out $1200 for a Tascam 3340S 4-track. All it had was volume and balance controls (if I remember correctly, my ex-roommate borrowed it back around 1985, haven't seen him or the Tascam since). This year I picked up a new Fostex digital recorder, an 8 track with 16 virutal tracks, built-in effects and compressor, for $399. Now I see that Fostex has a new model with even more features for $299. About 5 years ago all you could get for $299 is a 4 track cassette porta-studio and even then it wouldn't have been top-of-the-line.
Amazing.
Bradley
[ November 12, 2002: Message edited by: Bradley ] |
|
| |
|
Joined:
May 2002
Posts: 3005
Location: Las Cruces, NM | My son has a Zoom recorder and a Roland effects with drums, keyboard and every other effect you can imagine. It leads to recordings that you could never have imagined even 5 years ago, and they are no bigger than an Etch-a-Sketch.
The bad part is he keeps over dubbing my leads with synthesized sounds, leading me to decide to quit playing and then he wants me to play with him on the live jobs where he can't use all those effects. I find it harder to play at the level we played at 10 years ago but, like him, I prefer fast and furious over sedate and correct, so we keep on barging on. I just put new strings on my mandolin for another job coming up when I was going to retire and set here and play at my own pace. Well, Jethro Burns played into his 70's so I've got at least 3 years but I have to convince those fingers to keep moving. Secretly, playing keeps your fingers young, it's like exercise for your body, my left hand fingers are totally healthy while the rest of my body is feeling the years.
Bailey
[ November 14, 2002: Message edited by: Bailey ] |
|
| |
|
Joined:
August 2002
Posts: 623
Location: Lake Hiawatha, New Jersey | Bradley,
I'm right with you...I had a tascam 424, then the 488 (Spent 4 toes and my first born on that one) back in the early '90's. I remember, too, killing myself on the performance of tracks, and then being so incredibly frustrated with the results/limitations of trying to mix down to a tape deck. Finally, I just gave up...the production results never matched what I heard in my head, or the blood and sweat that went into a song. My expectations were really too high, realistically, for the equipment I could afford. I haven't recorded in about 5 years or so.
I started purchasing equipment to record on my Mac several years ago, but my accountant (heh, heh) nixed that idea. Plus the idea of arguing with plug-in conflicts for 7 hours at a clip really turned me off. At this point, I'm a songwriter, not a rocket scientist.
I really excited about getting this MRS1266CD, and the idea of burning right to cd! I know it won't have Pro Tools results, but hopefully the home recording experience will be easier than back in the 80's and 90's! The technology advances really seem to have come a long way!
John |
|
| |
Mic input?