Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


  • Location
    Decatur, AL

MrJoshua's Achievements


Newbie (1/14)



  1. The 201 does have a little more top end than the 200, but I don't find either of them to be particularly prone to sibilance. But as I think about it, I'm not sure I've used either of them with any sibilance-prone singers up to this point. They're both good microphones, though.
  2. Nice. Enjoying the mic so far, then? I used one of the new 101fet SDCs on an acoustic part the other day and it sounded very good. Of course, part of that was due to the fact that it was a good player with a Martin, but I like to think the mic helped...
  3. David and the folks at Mojave have offered to bring their mikes by for me to have a listen to here in my studio - I'm going to have to take them up on that one of these days... I've only heard them at trade shows, but from what I could tell there, they sounded very good. When you get the chance please do. I don't know how they compare to vintage Neumann mics or anything like that, but they certainly match up well with other offerings in the price range ... or above.
  4. I'm really excited. I haven't had a New Mic Day in awhile and this is the most expensive one I've ever purchased, so I'm a bit nervous. I think you'll like it. I don't have a ton of expensive mics but I have a couple around the four-figure mark (a Microtech-Gefell MT-71S and a BLUE Woodpecker), and the Mojave mics compare well with either of them. They're solid.
  5. It's actually coming from Alabama! Well it isn't mine!
  6. Well, I just won a used one (201-fet) off Ebay for $500. I figure if I don't like it I can probably flip it again for close to that, right? Sounds like a plan.
  7. I just looked up the 201 on Sweetwater. Totally tempted, especially since it works better for sibilant voices (ie- ME). If you're anywhere near north Alabama, you're welcome to come by and try mine out before you purchase one.
  8. I've read a review of the MA-200. Any mic that has Royer influence sounds like a winner to me. The only thing I thought would be an issue is the Chinese thing, but my guess is Royer wouldn't associate with crap quality stuff so... yeah! If I didn't know that the capsules were made in China (I'm not sure about the rest of the mic) I certainly would never be able to guess from using it. It's a solid microphone.
  9. I have to say that I really like these microphones. I've had an MA-200 (their tube-based large diaphragm condensor) for a couple of months now it's just a solid mic. Nice, full-bodied sound and the top end manages to be present without sounding brittle or harsh. It has rapidly become the first mic I reach for with most singers. Now, that's probably not as impressive as it would be if I had a bigger mic collection, but still. I like it so much that I decided to give their solid-state version, the MA-201fet, a try. I've only had a chance to use it on a couple of demo session so far, but it has a lot of the same characteristics I like so much about the MA-200. It has a good presence in the lower mids and a little less high end than the 200. It responds well to EQ. So far I've used it on vocals and drum overhead. Next I'm considering trying it on kick, and I'd like to hear how it sounds on acoustic guitar, too. I'm impressed enough with the 200 and 201, though, that I've ordered a pair of the MA-101fet small diaphragm condensors. Right now my small-diaphragm choices are a pair of Rode NT5 mics and a pair of AKG C430 mics. I keep the AKGs in the live rig to use as drum mics when they're needed - they have a really boosted top end and while they can sound good on drums that's not really what I'm looking for out of my recordings right now. So really the Rodes are my go-to SDCs. It will be interesting to see if the Mojave mics can change my mind there. And with that my tax refund is spent, so it'll probably be a little while before I order anything else for the studio, barring some breakage or maintenance costs. Anyway, I just thought I'd share my thoughts. Has anyone else used these mics? I know they've come up in discussion here, especially the MA-200, but I haven't read anything here about the 101fet as far as I remember. The 201 doesn't seem to get a ton of press either, but it's a pretty darn good choice for a large-diaphragm cardioid condensor. Especially considering that it costs under $700.
  10. Are you running out of processing power? If you are, consider converting the files to 48 or 44.1kHz. If not, why bother?
  11. I have a pair of A7s with a Sub 8, and I keep them on different connections from my Mackie "Big Knob" so I can turn the sub on and off at will. The A7s have plenty of low end 95% of the time, I'd say. I'll turn the sub on to make sure nothing weird is happening at the low-low end, but most of my mixing takes place with it turned off. It does sound really good once you take the time to dial it in, though. But my room needs more bass trapping (a LOT) and having the sub on tends to exaggerate the problems.
  12. They had an 18 year old friend make the purchase. This criminal may very well have done the same thing. The 18-year-old then sold or gave those guns to the younger kids, without the consent of their parents. At that point it rather ceases to be a legal transaction, no? If I buy a rifle, well and good. If I then sell that rifle to a felon, it's no longer a "legally-purchased" rifle. edit: man. I have GOT to start reading the whole thread before I reply. nothing to see here. move along, folks...
  13. At the risk of offending, that is such a frustrating cop out of an answer. :/ I promise you, it isn't as frustrating as someone comparing an apple to an orange as a method of deciding whether pears are better than bananas, which is essentially what you're doing here. Were you hitting the cymbal in exactly the same spot with exactly the same force and holding the stick exactly the same way on each take? Of course not. But each of these things can have exactly the sort of effect you were describing as the difference between these two "sample rates". Hit it harder, get a brighter ping with more ringing. Hit it a little higher toward the bell, get a bright sound with less ringing and lower volume. And so on and so forth. It's good that you hear a difference. I'm not arguing that there's no difference. But drawing a conclusion based on a test like this is a good way to fool oneself into believing something that may not be true.
  14. What differences exist would more likely be caused by the performances being different as opposed to the sample rates being different.
  15. Yeah, that seems to be the general consensus by most of us. Well, to an extent. With a properly-designed, well-implemented filter you don't really gain much by going to 96kHz. Even if I were going to use a higher sample rate (and I don't - I still use 44.1kHz) I'd still go with 88.2kHz as a maximum. That gets you WELL above the point at which a low-pass antialiasing filter should be fairly easily designed and built, aliasing should be reduced to the point that it essentially ceases to be a problem, and any objections over frequency response or fidelity at that point are just sheer bloody-mindedness. Any higher than that and you're just making it harder on your computer without gaining much of anything.
  • Create New...