Reddirt wrote on Fri, 05 September 2008 04:51 |
I have one and have not employed it in any exhaustive way but my first sketchy impressions are thus: On the retailer's site the strummed steel acoustic demo was wonderfully free of cadioid proximity artifacts such as are present with my km84s and other cardioid mics. -so that sold me straight up. However, in my only serious recording use of it so far I preferred the 84 on a plucked nylon classical piece. The 84 was more true to the source . the Woodpecker was a bit edgy and drew attention to itself which we didn't want. I have done some rough vocals : it's about as susceptible to 'plosives as a good condensor which is good. It is surprisingly bright with a very hot level for a ribbon. Has a certain euphonic/smooth flavour but I need to check that out in a more demanding way. Noise floor is relatively high and may compromise it's use with low level sources; with reasonably robust levels it shouldn't be a problem. Presentation and packaging are right up there if that counts for anything - the shockmount / case are great. I perhaps am hoping by default to get a high end condensor from this ribbon if you know what i mean; so far it feels like money well spent (B-stock $699) but some more demanding sessions are needed to firm up the picture. Sorry to be a bit undefined but hope this helps. Cheers, Ross |
Randirainbow wrote on Wed, 03 September 2008 16:39 |
Anyone try this microphone yet and have an opinion? |
MrJoshua wrote on Thu, 02 July 2009 13:00 |
It's somewhat of an old topic, but I thought I'd chip in my two cents about this mic. Keep in mind that I don't do this professionally - I'm a hobbyist/home studio guy who spends way more time and money on this stuff than he should. So, take anything I say with a grain of salt. |