Jul 16, 2004 01:04 pm Mics really are not Marshall's main thang (as we all know) but I have read a lot of good things about that mic for it's price range...tho I have never used one myself.
Looking to buy a Marshall V57M Condenser Mic...
Posted on Jul 16, 2004 12:50 pm
Albertv05
Dub head
Member Since: May 03, 2004
Marshall Electronics V57M Studio Condenser Microphone.
Is this any good? It'll be for a one band band situation. For use on some vox & hand percussion as well as acoutic guitar. Has anyone had any experience with this? Would I be better with just using an SM57? Thanks!
Cheers.
-Al
[ Back to Top ]
Jul 16, 2004 01:04 pm Mics really are not Marshall's main thang (as we all know) but I have read a lot of good things about that mic for it's price range...tho I have never used one myself.
Jul 16, 2004 01:27 pm Thats not the same Marshall DB,Its MXL, different company.
Albert, I have a V-67, and it is amazing. Check my profile to see the other mics I have, costing from 2-9 times as much. We did mic shootouts with all the mics I have, and the Marshall was in the top 2, if not THE top for certain things. It was 99 bucks for the mic,shockmount, and clip. Ridicoulous price. However, as discussed in previous threads, the cheaper condensers that are made now have a consistency problem, and I may have got a "good" one..... or, they may all sound that good!!!!
Jul 16, 2004 01:29 pm There are (maybe were) mics out there with the "Marshall" name on it. I know MXL they are one in the same?
Jul 16, 2004 01:42 pm yep same company, my brother bought one year and a half ago, and I thought the same as you at first. The old ones you saw were probably early MXL ones, I dont think Marshall(amps) ever made mics. If they did, they (like many other companies) stuck their name on a suppliers product.
Jul 16, 2004 01:50 pm Awesome! Thanks guys! I'll def. purchase this. For the price it's worth it! Again, thanks a bunch!
-Al
Jul 16, 2004 01:51 pm Well, you damn well better report back what you think of it, I have been concidering an MXL myself...
Jul 16, 2004 02:08 pm I have a good thread somewhere on a studio that included several of them in a huge shootout.
It was Harvey Gerst at indian trail studios. I think I have it bookmarked, but I gott go teach alot of Beavis type punks right now.....(sigh)
Jul 17, 2004 12:24 pm I've never tried that particular mic but I have the MXL 2001; It has clarity and good tone. I love it...it's a great mic. The only slight drawback I've noticed about it(be it ever so slight)is that it has a weeeee bit of sharpness to it...if you know what I mean? But if you mess with it a bit using an Eq, it should be just fine.
Hey, before I got to readin' up on marshall mics, I thought they were made buy marshall amps also. Their a california based company. They deal alot with the broadcasting industry. I read somewhere that cnn, abc, etc...was some of their biggest buyers. But not just mics, they make brocasting equipment,too. But yes...I think their real good mics.
dB, if your reading this I just wanted to let you know I'm still doing that article I asked you about. I know what I want to write about but still working on how to word it.
Take it easy!
Jul 18, 2004 02:00 am ask me, I am the "mic" man!!!!!
Jul 18, 2004 11:47 am Wrmach,
I checked your profile and I truely wish you had a Rode NT1 listed there. Per your comment on "slightly sharp" it sounds like a very comparable mic and I love the NT1. It makes very good economic sense that if they are getting a large volume of sales from broadcast users that they could manufacture the mics with a very low overhead per mic. I too am now getting interested. Per other comments by others, I too was concerned about monster amp company branching out into microphones. I have seen too many companies pick up a "cash cow" to fund their core compentency and not feed the cow properly resulting in the consumer getting bull meat. Yuch!
Jul 18, 2004 12:14 pm J M Marshall amps and Marshall Electronics are two entirely different companies. They are not related in the slightest. I own a V57. It is a very sibilant mic. Works OK for some things but the V67G is a way better vocal mic. I can't in good concience reccomend the V57 for anything that requires close micing. I used it on a choir where it worked fairly well.
Blessings, Terry
www.marshallamps.com/images/home/home.html
www.mars-cam.com/
Jul 18, 2004 01:58 pm Cool link Terry!
Please elaberate on your findings per using the MXLs. Did you find any usage that they excell in? Besides silibus, where there any other glaring limitations to the mics? They do intrigue me as I am King-0-Cheep.
Jul 18, 2004 10:58 pm heres a cool mxl link for reviews also. I have the v-67, and honeslty I bought it for a client "woo-er", because it looks like it costs a million bucks! But, it happens to sound amazing also. I figured, flash it around, and then use the "good" mic..... its nice sounding though
www.lightlink.com/loredo/ag/rmmga/mics01.html
Jul 18, 2004 11:40 pm GW,
That is an interesting article. I know the performance of the Oktava 012's, so that gives me a good understanding of the performance of the Marshal. The 67 sounds like it may be pretty good as well. I just wish they would have compared it to maybe an Oktava 319 or Rode NT1 for reference. It sounds like the 67 is worth keeping an ear on. I have heard a number of Terry's recordings and they are very fine. Not the rockey roley grunt and scream stuff. Some very fine choral work. Some very distinct tonality to judge from.
Jul 18, 2004 11:53 pm Thanks Wally! Im glad you liked it. The v67 sounds amazing, but I may have got a strange one. In a thread about a/b ing mics Iposted a month or so ago, I was talking about a good way to do it. Its real un biased. I have a 319, and I HATE it, but I may have got a bad one. It matches up characteristicly almost EXACTLY like an sm-57, which is torrid, for a lg. dia. mic.
Jul 19, 2004 12:01 am That is possible GW. I have heard of a few folks getting ringers. Mine is dark or warm which ever you prefer, but as far as sensitivity, range, etc., it is much better than the 57. I like using it for untrained singers. Really flatters them. I get a trained vocalist and out comes the NT1. There is just no way I am going to buy a mega grand blue etc. just to squash the sound to 44.1 on a cd. But the 67 may be an option for me. Thanks for the link!
Jul 19, 2004 12:08 am hOPe you get a good one Walt, I love mine. I have wanted to get a second for stereo recordings, but have been afraid a little because I would hate to get one that was way different....... jeez, I have enough toys already, I guess I should focus on using them, huh? The mics already fight with each other, because I dont spend the same amount of time with them all.....Im a bad daddy......
Jul 20, 2004 01:55 am Walt: [size=5]"...as I am King-0-Cheep...[/size]"
me too walt. :)
Jul 20, 2004 08:17 am Hey Walt,
The truth is that the V57 is just a cheap mic. It even has a really crummy looking paint job. At first listen, It sounds OK because it has that scooped sound where the mids are backed out, the bottom is pretty strong and the top end is crisp. You know how it sounds when you do the smiley face with a graphic EQ. Sounds really clean and clear for a few minutes until you start missing all the stuff that's supposed to be there. Well that's kinda how the V57 is. If you use it on a source that is too midrangy it might help but it's just too scooped for my taste. I don't actually own a V67G, but I have heard vocals recorded with them and heard so many testimonies about how good they sound that I believe they are a good investment.
Blessings, Terry
Jul 20, 2004 01:15 pm All the cheap mics have a scoop, thats what makes them sound good right off the bat, its the only way to eq an inexpensive mic.
I guess how the smiley face is curved may be the difference.
My v 67 is great sounding, and for 99 bucks, you cant go wrong.
Jul 20, 2004 10:37 pm Now we are getting to the root of things. Thanks guys for the time to elaborate! Warmach, glad to hear there is someone else as cheep as I am. My wife complains constantly. I love it! My experience in electronics is that the "you get what you pay for" is to be taken with a grain of salt. Better to have a good hold of what you are doing, what that will take, and an understanding of the componant. It is far too easy to throw money out the door for little return. The V65 is going on the list of purchase when possible.
Thanks again all on my part! Good thread.
Jul 22, 2004 12:23 am Oops, never type after midnight wally,.....67.
|
Related Forum Topics: |
If you would like to participate in the forum discussions, feel free to register for your free membership.