Quote:
Originally Posted by TimmyP  You need to also test them live too. A mic that sounds great in the studio can be a disaster when there's lots of racket surrounding the singer. |
I'm the only singer when I'm on stage, for about the last 12 years now, generally 4-6 hours - so yeah, I've got lots and lots of hours in live 'testing'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyM I'm always surprised to see this thread brought back up. Almost makes me feel like a big rube for sticking with the 58 
So akami, what is it about the 6100 that's getting it done for you? |
I never stick my nose up at friends who like the 58 because they're the ones who know what works for them, which is what really matters. If the 58 is the mic that works for you, I know I'd enjoy hearing the results too.
The thing that I first liked about the AE-6100 when hearing it in the store was the crispness I missed from my ATM-5R condensers, which I might add, is one of the things that immediately made me like the
PR-35 as well. I also love a mic with a tight operating range, which makes the AE-6100 good for me, but not so much so for someone who needs a larger area of pickup.
However, if crisp response was the only thing about them that I liked, then there would be a good number or other contenders, and that's where the all important midrange character of the AE-6100 keeps it's hold on my affections.
It's also quite a bit more forgiving of careless singing technique, while also delivering all the goods when I do my job right. While not as open and airy as the
PR-35, it really is a better fit for my voice and I feel like I'm right back at home again after my enjoyable, but at times frustrating fling with the very sensitive
PR-35.
As I've felt all along though, anyone singing with a very soft character and desiring a condenser-like studio quality out of a dynamic should definitely check out the
PR-35.
