"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Don Pearce" wrote in message

On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 16:27:49 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:

It struck me that the bright characteristic of this mic
could be used to advantage other than in concert
applications, for recording of instruments such a
celeste, or tuned percussion, glockenspiel, bar chimes, bell tree,
etc.
The sound was pleasing - clean, clear and bright,
with adequate gain.

Yes, that pretty fairly sums up this mic. Bright - too
bright for many applications and harsh is a description
I've often heard. Of course any flavour of mic will find
an application, even if it is "enhanced intelligibility"
in a church, oxymoron though that clearly is.


Several reports of the C1000 making most things sound "
glassy and unnatural".

Several reports? So you have no first hand experience?

Neither did you Iain

I have now:-)


and that didn't stop you from recommending it and supporting that
reccomendation.

If you check what I wrote, you will find that I did not
recommend it (how could I?) but asked a colleague
in the UK who stated it was good for "groove piano"
That's what got me interested.

I don't know anybody who has much budget or time for mics with the sort of
reputation that the C1000 has.

Damn its reputation Arny. In chosen applications it performs
well. I think a pair will be very good as rock drum kit overheads.
The body and cage of the mic are very substantial so propbably
less prone to damage. The capsule replacement is far less
expensive than the Neumann equivalents.

This is quite a step back from your initial "the AKG C1000
sound like ****" statement, isn't it?

No, its an obvious clarification. I know very few people who are stupid
enough not to see the relationship between the two statements.

You made them both! Both were judgements on a mic you had
never heard.

Iain

Iain