a good mic pls

[DFischer]

He wants simple answers.

The best microphone is the Line Audio CM4. It has a very flat frequency response. Buy that and all your problems will be solved.

And just to be clear, my suggestion here was sarcastic. But if a flat response is too boomy and sibilant, perhaps a carbon microphone would work better.

 

[abbey road d enfer]

This is going nowhere. Please let's talk about more interesting subjects.

 

[Barry Hufker]

I refuse to participant any further in this farce.

 

[MicMaven]

He repeatedly returns to "unbalanced and muddy".
The mic is fine. Other suggested mics are fine.
What that this mean?

We covered this already, old man ... it is the engine or the engineer? (I am trying to recall that foreign translation Mr. Micolas is STILL trying to figure out!!) James

 

[k brown]

This is going nowhere. Please let's talk about more interesting subjects.

I fear 'more interesting subjects' are not possible on this thread.

 

[MicMaven]

This is going nowhere. Please let's talk about more interesting subjects.

Good suggestion.

I am reminded of a lesson I learned having lunch with John Bernhard, former press agent and publicist to the famous millionaire, Howard Hughes. As an enthusiastic young agent, Bernhard wanted to promptly publish a denial of any scurrilous slander published by tabloids and gossip magazines. Mr. Hughes steadfastly refused permission to publish any rebuttal, as that merely gave the story more press than it deserved. Mr. Hughes preferred to turn the other cheek and ignore it. This lesson served me well on many occasions as I ignored various provocations, keeping my clients on a productive path. This may be consistent with the above suggestion.

Nevertheless, I occasionally indulge my alter ego, and enjoy a good scrap! JHR

 

[MicMaven]

James, I read every word in your "rant." And while I understand much of what you're saying (and you're not "wrong"), we won't be changing society back to some previous (non-existent) "ideal." When I am buying a vacuum cleaner, I do want to know "the best" for what I need and so I check several "best vacuum" sites looking for a consensus. It is something I will buy only once every 10 or 20 years (hopefully). But other things are what I make my living with so I will do in-depth study of "the thing" and how it operates. It is all based on "need," "use" and where our heart lies.

So coming here to ask knowledgeable people is somewhat akin to looking for consensus among several "best microphone" sites. It is a more convenient way one can make a quick, informed decision. I have no problem with that. What irks me is when the enquirer receives personalized attention on this site (or any other), that person demonstrates a lack of gratitude, patience, politeness and the willingness to learn at least a little bit. I don't expect someone to have the same depth of interest as I have. I want just a little bit of being a polite, thoughtful, appreciative human being.

End of reply rant...

WELL SAID, BARRY. No argument here.

I believe we would agree there ARE some good reviews from qualified folks which are worth looking for. I should have more clearly indicated I was referring to the large number of fake reviews by unqualified folks which makes finding the good reviews harder to find. You are correct - good discussion groups, like this one, are a vastly superior source of information.

Thanks for adding your take. James

 

[OneRoomStudio]

Here’s something I wish someone had said to me when I was starting out: the difference between any half-decent microphones (of which the NT1 is one), is subtler than you might think. Most differences can be overcome with EQ, mic placement, room treatment, and technique. The reason expensive mics are expensive is because they deliver a “known quality,” and typically require a little less treatment to sound “right” (whatever “right” is for that voice/source).

There’s a lot of gear worship on YouTube and forums, but I’d rather have a good musician in a good room with an NT1 than a mediocre performer in a bad sounding room with a U87 (or 251 or C800g). It’s fine to want to get a better sound, but don’t expect a new microphone (or any piece of gear) to magically give you the sound you’re looking for. It never will.

 

[Chrisfromthepast]

Microphones capture the source. If every microphone seems wrong, maybe the source should be changed as a refresher?
Acoustic treatment will help, or, alter your reflective surfaces’ angles to the mic? Or if criticism hasn’t helped, embrace work as a means of an end result?

 

[Newmarket]

Okay. Many comments suggest a cul-de-sac here and to stop commenting. So let's do that. NOW