mine is relatively low on output as well (compares to other mics), but it doesn't pick up noise, not as much as the other mics. Be sure you have a pre with high enough gain to open it up. Are you using built in pre on your interface?

Yeah, I got the CR24 pack and modded the 603. It's usable, but not as nice as the MC012s. The 2003a is much in the same boat. I like having it because it's relatively flat and works on many sources... but I have yet to find it to be the "best" on anything. It's a good workhorse for when I need an extra mic and the one I would normally use is taken. One thing I've noticed is, you really can't boost the high frequencies on it without things getting harsh in a hurry.

Also, I've used it to double vocals and it worked pretty well there. I also engaged the pad on the mic and that seemed to make it sound more focused. Maybe that was a preamp issue, though.

I am using the pres on my focusrite saffire pro 14 right now. But during the comparison with the shure LDC it was plugged into a universal audio 610, where it also needed to be cranked significantly higher.

I am almost ready to go about returning this mic because of its unimpressive signal level. I mean isn't that enough to tell you its not a very good mic? Admittedly I don't really know what I'm talking about

The sound is flat and overall good. But the shure LCD was so much more rich. May have just been a volume thing. Should I just turn the pre up higher?

It might be QC because I paired an Ultimate Mod'd (by Michael Joly) 603 with a Cascade Fathead II Lundahl on an acoustic guitar and I thought it sounded spectacular. And honestly an SM57 can be a very good choice for certain acoustic guitar parts so I'm not sure what you're getting at?

I think the stock 603 is pretty damn good what other $100 (and it usually sells for less) mic have you really heard that blows it out of the water on acoustic guitar? And I'm talking less than $100 current US street price not some amazing once in a lifetime ebay/craigslist/classifieds deal. Compare apples to apples.

It's a pretty bright mic but I didn't find it to be thin or harsh and on a full bodied acoustic (I have a couple really nice sounding all solid wood acoustics) at around the 12th-14th fret mixed in with the ribbon in my application which was miking the body it really rounded out the whole stereo image and brought a lot of the natural brightness and articulation back that the ribbon was lacking (and I had been playing with different mono positions on the ribbon I decided to stick it on the body because that's where it sounded best, and then use the 603 to add some air back in where it sounded best).

I'm not trying to change your opinion just trying to show how YMMV and the reason why online opinions in forums can be absolute rubbish. It's really best to just figure things out on your own because your ears aren't mine nor are your preferences.

Yeah it's not perfect, but there are obvious design flaws and such because of cost constraints. Personally I hated the 603 on toms and snares because of the lack of a pad, a friend uses the 604 on toms and with the pads engaged they are ok but not as good as Audix D2/D4, CAD M179, or Sennheiser MD421 (or even the lesser thrown up mics in my studio SM57 or e609).

Now are there mics I like better on acoustic guitar, hell yeah, for less than $100 though, most likely aren't gonna find one. You have to remember not everyone can reasonably afford better gear for some people splurging on an MXL 603 could be breaking the bank, whether or not they save, some people in this economy just don't have money to save because they are working part time for a crappy wage trying to raise a wife and kids. (that's not me I'm just trying to say that for what it is it's not that bad and it's far from unusable).

That's why I said - IMO, and YMMV in my posts. As for an under $100 alternative, like I said, I'd choose a SM57 any time. For what I do, 603's ARE unuseable. If I only had a 57 and a 603, the 603 would never see the light of day.

I like Michael's mods a LOT. Really a lot and have had some 991's modded by him to work with my K47JH LDC's, but the SDC's never get used.

Personally, IMO, a good dynamic often beats out a cheap condenser. A 421 kills most condensers under $3-500 - again IMO - and the rejection factor makes using them in untreated rooms (like what most people have who buy $300 LDC's) a dream come true.

#1 - most mids but was a little painful on the line "for so long now".
#2 - I agree with your assessment: thin and bright.
#3 and #4 - progressively thicker, progressively less articulate. They sound better on your voice while isolated but I would imagine they'd need some significant EQ (cut lows, boosted mids/highs) or would be too muddy in a mix, especially #4.

Firstly, let me say that I have no dog in this race, I don't care how any of the mics fare other then to give a personal opinion. With that out of the way: Most mics are sensitive to where their sweet spot is. Some you have to work up close, some you have to back off of, Some you can sing right into the capsule, others you need to find the best angle to maybe reduce sibilance, etc.

I would say try it again and back off of #4, get up closer on #2 and try turning it slightly to the side, while singing into it (or move your self) and find the spot that sound best.

I'm not saying this to try to get you to like #2 or anything like that, just trying to exchange some thoughts.

No matter whether a mic is $59 or $5,900, you might find the same general methods apply: proximity, position, angle might make more of a difference than another mic......or maybe not.....or might help your sound focus and/or bloom.

As for you trying different lower end mics, MANY people have done the very same thing - I know I did. It was a good lesson and well worth the money spent (after selling, I didn't lose much). Also, those lessons helped me able to better know what qualities I liked in mics and what to listen for when upgrading.

Oh, even after a couple of upgrade steps, the proximity, position, angle never ends for any given source at any give time.

No matter how good the tools, it's all in how well you can use them.

You're on your way though, because you are trusting your ears, which in the end, is what matters. Hone your skills, allow your instincts to develop, and you're on your way.

Thanks for sharing.........

i found the 2003a is the best mic for good vocals...the 2035 for somewhat good vocals like mine...and on acoustical instruments, the AT hands down...

a dynamic and a condenser are two different animals though while you may get better room isolation using a dynamic mic you aren't really getting a better sounding mic. You are getting a different sound. I'm generalizing here but typically most dynamics are a lot meatier, smoother, and darker sounding than condensers. A lot of the condenser being discussed here capture a lot more mid and high detail and transient response that even a good dynamic mic can't compete with.

So a lot of this depends on the sonic character you prefer and the application.

With that said most people prefer the tone of a condenser for recording vocals to a dynamic. That's not saying I always agree with that, that's just popular belief/opinion.

You can try to name other scenarios but your train of thought isn't always going to be the one that always works nor is it what most people prefer. No right or wrong here just stating things for the basis of putting the info out there.

I'm not trying to argue here but I think most people will agree that for acoustic guitar and vocals condensers are preferable for sound quality on the vast majority of sources in a project studio setting. Hence the reason they sell more than anything else for the most part. Honestly I've almost always gotten better results with condensers and I've had some top notch dynamics (sennheisers, heils, shures, beyerdynamics, audix, audio-technica, etc). Regardless of wehther I was in an acoustically treated environment or not. I just find that for ribbons and dynamics to really shine (TO THE POINT I FEEL THEY OUTPERFORM LOW COST CONDENSERS) you need better preamps/converters and buying a decent dynamic mic alone is cheaper than a nicer condenser but buying a good preamp isn't that easy for a low end budget. Someone spending $500-$1000 on a single channel mic pre is usually out of the question. And as I said if you need better transient detail or a brighter sound you usually aren't even going to get those two characteristics out of most dynamic designs compared to even a low low cost LDC. That's just my opinion mixed in with what I've found to be popular and that was after selling pro audio gear for years, running my own commercial studio, etc.

Honestly if you're worried about bleed it's not that hard to hang a duvet behind the mic and behind the singer. Without spending money (or very little) or doing permanent treatment that gets a lot of isolation and really helps to clear up things. DIY treatments are cheap and easy. And if you don't want to do that their are a lot of solutions that don't break the bank like the Reflexion Filter etc. I know there are a lot of similar products at similar and lower price points.

Honestly I get leary when people mention things like room isolation and stuff I don't even think about things like that when I think of low end theory gear selection because if you are going to pretend to be that picky about things you are going to make it almost impossible to remain low end in your budget. Room isolation isn't picking the appropriate tool for the job and imho it's an excuse for not making a quality recording on a budget.

Commercial recordings get made everyday in loud environments in NYC, Nashville, London, LA, etc. And what people forget is that when you make music most of that extraneous noise becomes obsolete when instruments are playing and people are singing. Not to mention what the average consumer listening to your music listens with, do you think there ipod ear buds are going to be that revealing?

and of course none of this really matters unless you know how to make the most of the tools and have something worthwhile to record and a lot of low end recorders have less than stellar performers to record (a lot of unpolished/unrefined material from a performing and writing perspective) and not much recording experience

I think you missed my point by about a hundred miles. I use a SDCondenser to record Ac Gtr 99.9% of the time. My point was, if I had to use the 603 to record Ac Gtr, that would be the .01% of the time I'd choose a dynamic. Nice writeup though, I agree.

thanks, like I said it wasn't to argue simply to state stuff

the newer V67N SDC they have is a much better sounding mic imho it's a lot darker than the 603, prob due to the transformer. I'm hoping Joly will start to mod em because that's about the only thing holding me back from buying one or two.

I don't have much money to throw toward my project studio right now since I just got engaged and have a lot of bills and not a tremendous income.

yor,
i really can't say whether your mic is faulty/defective without hearing it.
I tested mine earlier tonight agaisnt a Rode NT1000. It has slightly lower output than the Rode, but not by much. I didn't have to turn up the channel strip much to get usable input.

my 2003a sounds good and takes EQ quite well.

I used my brand new pair for a massive orchestra/chorus thing earlier this evening (the Berlioz Requiem) and they were gorgeous. You know one thing, though?

The switches for the pad and roll off poke out just too far-- they can get flipped unintentionally by accident and you don't even know it-- until you sit down to monitor, and wonder why the hell is the output on the stage left one so much lower than the other? And then you scramble around amidst the masses of potted flowers on the steps to the altar and AHA! That damned switch again!!!

This is maybe not everyone's cup of chai, but it does demonstrate how the 2003a's used as the main pair sound in one mogofogin' huge church.


Tindeck MP3 Hosting: Albany Pro Musica - The Berlioz Requiem

they get the job done
and quite well too

Joel... this really sounds great! Well done.

Thanks... it's just a jumpin' jack flash to work with these guys, they really sign, seal and deliver it!

I'm curious what you think about the 603 on steel string fingerpicked acoustic guitar in this shootout....its the first track here:

Paul Ladendorf's sets on SoundCloud - Create, record and share your sounds for free

From my experience, the Oktava Mk012 (modded) is at the top of the list for both nylon string and steel string acoustic guitars. I have also liked the modded MXLv67g for Nylon string and steel string acoustic guitar. After that I have used the MXL 2003a specifically for steel string acoustic or the AT2020 for nylon string guitar. I also own an MXL 990 and an MXL 604 (both modded), but I prefer the other mics mentioned before overall. All of the mics of course have different characteristics, and are suited to different instruments in my collection. I also have an AT2035, but I find that to be more of a vocal mic. Some of the mods done are simple mods (input coupling capacitor, etc.), however the v67g needs to have a more involved mod to be a useful mic (IMO).

MXL 603/604/990/MCA SP-1 all use the same capsule. It does have a generous lift at 15k hz. All of those also use the same Schoeps circuits.

If you find any of those strident, it's fixed by replacing the ceramic coupling caps with film caps. A $99 replacement capsule would also help the MCA and 990.

I did not find that to be the case Jim. After mods, I still find them too bright, although less "smeary" for lack of a better descriptor. Still significantly brighter than an AKG 451 for example which for me is on the upper end of the brightness scale for my needs.

Coupling them with a different capsule - for instance like the K47H - does make them a useable preamp body, but the capsule??? Got to go IMO. Maybe cool for distant micing, but I never got that far with it.

agreed... I've only ever heard them sound great when someone used them to record outstanding sounding tracks in amazing acoustic environments, where even a cell phone microphone would have done a decent job.

I highly dislike the mxl sdc capsule. always have, always will.

the N version sounds interesting but I've read that it too still has issues.

SDCs are one are where I just can't skimp on cost.

BUT, when I did need to skimp at one time, I used AT2020 mics (which are MDC in a LDC body) on acoustic guitar etc and they were great. still thin mics like you'd think from a sdc but not harsh at all like 603s are.

almost every other cheap sdc, even those $50 behringer sdcs (well, they're back electrets actually), are MUCH more musical sounding (although not terribly useful due to high noise and limited dynamic range).

How would you rate the Oktava MK-012 or AKG perception 170 to any of the SDCs here?

If you find that capsule too brite, it can be tuned to relax that. There are 2 1000 pf caps mounted across the 150k bias resistors for the 2 output transistors. I replace those resistors with 100k ohms to lower the thermal noise contribution.

Then play with the caps. 2200 pf, 2700 pf, 3300 pf all will smooth out the tops, pick to taste.

FWIW, I've used these mics quite a bit here. For location recording, they are low risk. I opened mine up with 100k/470 pf caps and added MIT coupling caps and Rel Cap polystyrene's, the best made. The polarization DC converters were rebuilt to provide +60 volts to the capsules. That does tighted them up a bit too. I replaced the 2SK170 jfet as I found it to be slightly cloudy sounding compared to others. The Toshiba output transistors I used are the quietest parts available.

I've had fantastic results on some vocals with great intimacy and detail, guitar amps sound great and I've had great results with snare drum as well.

Some of them are fitted with K47 capsules, some with CK12 capsules, all of them sound great and their self noise is far below the originals.