decibel (Abbr. dB) - Equal to one-tenth of a bel. [After Alexander Graham Bell.]

1. A measuring system first used in telephony (Martin, W.H., "DeciBel -- the new name for the transmission unit. Bell System Tech. J. January 1929), where signal loss is a logarithmic function of the cable length.

2. The preferred method and term for representing the ratio of different audio levels. It is a mathematical shorthand that uses logarithms (a shortcut using the powers of 10 to represent the actual number) to reduce the size of the number. For example, instead of saying the dynamic range is 32,000 to 1, we say it is 90 dB [the answer in dB equals 20 log x/y, where x and y are the different signal levels]. Being a ratio, decibels have no units. Everything is relative. Since it is relative, then it must be relative to some 0 dB reference point. To distinguish between reference points a suffix letter is added as follows [The officially correct way per AESR2, IEC 60027-3 & IEC 60268-2 documents is to enclose the reference value in parenthesis separated by a space from "dB"; however, this never caught on, probably for brevity reasons if no other.] 0 dBu - Preferred informal abbreviation for the official dB (0.775 V); a voltage reference point equal to 0.775 Vrms. [This reference originally was labelled dBv (lower-case) but was too often confused with dBV (upper-case), so it was changed to dBu (for unterminated).]

+4 dBu - Standard pro audio voltage reference level equal to 1.23 Vrms.

0 dBV - Preferred informal abbreviation for the official dB (1.0 V); a voltage reference point equal to 1.0 Vrms.

-10 dBV - Standard voltage reference level for consumer and some pro audio use (e.g. TASCAM), equal to 0.316 Vrms. (Tip: RCA connectors are a good indicator of units operating at -10 dBV levels.)

0 dBm - Preferred informal abbreviation of the official dB (mW); a power reference point equal to 1 milliwatt. To convert into an equivalent voltage level, the impedance must be specified. For example, 0 dBm into 600 ohms gives an equivalent voltage level of 0.775 V, or 0 dBu (see above); however, 0 dBm into 50 ohms, for instance, yields an equivalent voltage of 0.224 V -- something quite different. Since modern audio engineering is concerned with voltage levels, as opposed to power levels of yore, the convention of using a reference level of 0 dBm is obsolete. The reference levels of +4 dBu, or -10 dBV are the preferred units.

0 dBr - An arbitrary reference level (r = re; or reference) that must be specified. For example, a signal-to-noise graph may be calibrated in dBr, where 0 dBr is specified to be equal to 1.23 Vrms (+4 dBu); commonly stated as "dB re +4," that is, "0 dBr is defined to be equal to +4 dBu."

0 dBFS - A digital audio reference level equal to "Full Scale." Used in specifying A/D and D/A audio data converters. Full scale refers to the maximum peak voltage level possible before "digital clipping," or digital overload (see overs) of the data converter. The Full-Scale value is fixed by the internal data converter design and varies from model to model. [According to standards people, there's supposed to be a space between "dB" and "FS" -- yeah, right, like that's gonna happen.]

0 dBf - Preferred informal abbreviation of the official dB (fW); a power reference point equal to 1 femtowatt, i.e., 10-15 watts.

0 dB-SPL - The reference point for the threshold of hearing, equal to 20 microPA (micro Pascals rms). [Note: dB-SPL is defined differently for gases and everything else. Per ANSI S1.1-1994, for gases, the reference level is 20 microPA, but for sound in media other than gases, unless otherwise specified, the reference is 1 microPA.]

Since 1 PA = 1 newton/m2 = .000145 PSI (pounds per square inch).

Then 0 dB-SPL = ±2.9 nano PSI (rms) change in the ambient pressure -- an unbelievably small value.

Therefore, it is a change in 1 atm ambient pressure of ± 1 atm (±14.7 PSI) that is equivalent to a loudness level of 194 dB-SPL, i.e., equals 2 atm on the overpressure portion of the cycle and 0 atm on the underpressure portion. [Thanks to Bob Pease for pointing out these enlightening facts.] And higher positive pressures are called shock waves, not sound. [Thanks to "Someone" for this distinction.] [Thanks also to Chuck McGregor for the clarifying language.]

dBA - Unofficial but popular way of stating loudness measurements made using an A-weighting curve.

dBC - Unofficial but popular way of stating loudness measurements made using a C-weighting curve.

weighting filters - Special filters used in measuring loudness levels, and consequently carried over into audio noise measurements of equipment. The filter design "weights" or gives more attention to certain frequency bands than others. The goal is to obtain measurements that correlate well with the subjective perception of noise. (Technically termed psophometric [pronounced "so-fo-metric"] filters, after the psophometer, a device used to measure noise in telephone circuits, broadcast, and other audio communication equipment. A psophometer was a voltmeter with a set of weighting filters.) Weighting filters are a special type of band-limiting filters designed to complement the way we hear. Since the ear's loudness vs. frequency response is not flat, it is argued, we should not try to correlate flat frequency vs. loudness measurements with what we hear. Fair enough. Five weighting filter designs dominate

(See: References: Metzler): *A-weighting - (not official but commonly written as dBA) The A-curve is a wide bandpass filter centered at 2.5 kHz, with ~20 dB attenuation at 100 Hz, and ~10 dB attenuation at 20 kHz, therefore it tends to heavily roll-off the low end, with a more modest effect on high frequencies. It is the inverse of the 30-phon (or 30 dB-SPL) equal-loudness curve of Fletcher-Munson. [Editorial Note: Low-cost audio equipment often list an A-weighted noise spec -- not because it correlates well with our hearing -- but because it helps "hide" nasty low-frequency hum components that make for bad noise specs. Sometimes A-weighting can "improve" a noise spec by 10 dB. Words to the wise: always wonder what a manufacturer is hiding when they use A-weighting.]

*C-weighting - (not official but commonly written as dBC) The C-curve is "flat," but with limited bandwidth, with -3 dB corners of 31.5 Hz and 8 kHz, respectively.

*ITU-R 468-weighting - (was CCIR, but since the CCIR became the ITU-R, the correct terminology today is ITU-R) This filter was designed to maximize its response to the types of impulsive noise often coupled into audio cables as they pass through telephone switching facilities.

Additionally, it turned out to correlate particularly well with noise perception, since modern research has shown that frequencies between 1 kHz and 9 kHz are more "annoying" than indicated by A-weighting curve testing. The ITU-R 468-curve peaks at 6.3 kHz, where it has 12 dB of gain (relative to 1 kHz). From here, it gently rolls off low frequencies at a 6 dB/octave rate, but it quickly attenuates high frequencies at ~30 dB/octave (it is down -22.5 dB at 20 kHz, relative to +12 dB at 6.3 kHz).

*ITU-R (CCIR) ARM-weighting or ITU-R (CCIR) 2 kHz-weighting - This curve derives from the ITU-R 468-curve above. Dolby <(George's weiner dogs name) Laboratories proposed using an average-response meter with the ITU-R 468-curve instead of the costly true quasi-peak meters used by the Europeans in specifying their equipment. They further proposed shifting the 0-dB reference point from 1 kHz to 2 kHz (in essence, sliding the curve down 6 dB). This became known as the ITU-R ARM (average response meter), as well as the ITU-R 2 kHz-weighting curve. (See: R. Dolby, D. Robinson, and K. Gundry, "A Practical Noise Measurement Method," J. Audio Eng. Soc., Vol. 27, No. 3, 1979) [Before using these terms be aware that the ITU-R, even after 20 years, takes strong exception to having its name used by a private company to promote its own methodologies.] *Z-weighting - A new term defined in IEC 61672-1, the latest international standard for sound pressure level measurements. It stands for zero-weighting or no weighting; i.e., a flat measurement with equal emphasis on all frequencies.

`From the Rane Corporation Pro Audio Reference glossary`

The Unsignificant 6 Record Deals Explained

Paraphrased excerpts from David Byrne's Survival Strategies for Emerging Artists

1. The 360 DEAL (or EQUITY DEAL). Every aspect of the artist's career is handled by producers, promoters, marketing people, and managers. The artist becomes a brand, owned and operated by the label. and in theory this gives the company a long-term perspective and interest in nurturing that artist's career. [It also lets them get their hooks into every last penny of the artist’s income – from EVERY source.]

This is the kind of deal Madonna made with Live Nation. For a reported \$120 million, the company – which until now has mainly produced and promoted concerts – will get a piece of both her concert revenue and her music sales.

2. The STANDARD DISTRIBUTION DEAL. The record company bankrolls the recording and handles the manufacturing, distribution, press, and promotion. The artist gets a royalty percentage after all those other costs are repaid. The label owns the copyright to the recording forever.

There's another catch with this kind of arrangement: The typical pop star often lives in debt to their record company and a host of other entities, and if they hit a dry spell they can go broke. [Consider] Michael Jackson, MC Hammer, TLC – the danger of debt and overextension is an old story.

Obviously, the cost of these services, along with the record company's overhead, accounts for a big part of CD prices. You, the buyer, are paying for all those trucks, those CD plants, those warehouses, and all that plastic. Theoretically, as many of these costs go away [due to increased online distribution], they should no longer be charged to the consumer . . . or the artist.

3. The LICENSE DEAL is similar to the standard deal, except in this case the artist retains the copyrights and ownership of the master recording. The right to exploit that property is granted to a label for a limited period of time – usually seven years. After that, the rights to license to TV shows, commercials, etc. revert to the artist. If a band has made a record itself and doesn't need creative or financial help, this model is worth looking at. It allows for a little more creative freedom, since you get less interference from the guys in the big suits. The flip side is that because the label doesn't own the master, it may invest less in making the release a success.

4. The PROFIT-SHARING DEAL. I [David Byrne] did something like this with my album Lead Us Not Into Temptation in 2003. I got a minimal advance from the label, Thrill Jockey, since the recording costs were covered by a movie soundtrack budget, and we shared the profits from day one. I retained ownership of the master. Thrill Jockey does some marketing and press. I may or may not have sold as many records as I would have with a larger company, but in the end I took home a greater share of each unit sold.

5. The MANUFACTURING AND DISTRIBUTION DEAL. [Also called P&D deals, standing for Pressing and Distribution.] The artist does everything except manufacture and distribute the product. Often the companies that do these kinds of deals also offer other services, like marketing. But given the numbers, they don't stand to make as much, so their incentive here is limited. Big record labels traditionally don't make M&D deals.

In this scenario, the artist gets absolute creative control, but it's a bigger gamble. Aimee Mann does this, and it works really well for her. "A lot of artists don't realize how much more money they could make by retaining ownership and licensing directly," Mann's manager, Michael Hausman, told me. "If it's done properly, you get paid quickly, and you get paid again and again. That's a great source of income."

6. THE SELF-DISTRIBUTION MODEL. The music is self-produced, self-written, selfplayed, and self-marketed. CDs are sold at gigs and through a Web site. Promotion is a MySpace page. The band buys or leases a server to handle download sales. Within the limits of what they can afford, the artists have complete creative control. In practice, especially for emerging artists, that can mean freedom without resources – a pretty abstract sort of independence. For those who plan to take their material on the road and play it live, the financial constraints cut even deeper. Backup orchestras, massive video screens and sets, and weird high tech lights don't come cheap.

Radiohead adopted this DIY model to sell In Rainbows online – and then went a step further by letting fans name their own price for the download. They weren't the first to do this – Issa (formerly known as Jane Siberry) pioneered the pay-what-you-will model a few years ago, but Radiohead's move was much higher profile. It may be less risky for them, but it's a clear sign of real changes afoot. As one of Radiohead's managers, Bryce Edge, told me, "The industry reacted like the end was near. ‘They've devalued music, giving it away for nothing,’ which wasn't true.” “We asked people to value it, which is very different semantics to me."

George.

5/4's Top 5 Reasons To Register Your Songs

1. Registration provides the best proof on earth that you are the owner of the song, as of (date the registration is received)

2. If you don't register it and some thief does . . . the thief now has the best proof on earth that the song is his!

3. Registration is a requirement for filing a copyright infringement lawsuit.

4. TIMELY registration (before any infringement) qualifies you for additional monetary awards (statutory damages, actual damages, attorney costs, court costs,etc.)

Note: UNTIMELY registration (after your song has been stolen) qualifies you only for the “actual money damages” you can prove -- a very expensive process involving auditors and investigators. You no longer get the \$150,000 award, and you no longer get your legal fees and court costs paid. Even if you win the case, by the time you pay your lawyer, auditors and investigators you may not get a dime!

5. If someone wants to record your song, they owe you mechanical royalties . . . if the song is registered. However . . .

"The licensee does not have to pay if there is no record of copyright registration filed at the Library of Congress."

— John Braheny, The Craft and Business of Songwriting.

Most Major Labels Laid Out Plain and Simple and What to Do...

This information is paraphrased from many different Music Business books. They may

each present it in slightly different ways, but the bottom line is always the same.

Here is a typical royalty calculation on a \$14.98 CD where the artist’s base royalty is 12%:

12% of \$14.98 = \$1.80 on each CD. Sales of 1 million earns \$1,800,000! Not Bad right?

But wait . . . there are a few DEDUCTIONS.

12% minus 3% (Producer’s Royalty) . . . adjusted royalty = 9%

9% times .75 (25% reduction for PACKAGING) = 6.75%

6.75% times .85 (15% reduction for “FREE GOODS”) = 5.74%

5.74% times .80 (20% reduction: “NEW TECHNOLOGY”) = 4.59%

4.59% times .65 (35% reduction for “RESERVES”) = 2.98%

THE REAL MATH

2.98% of \$14.98 = 44.7¢ per CD . . . . Times 1 million = \$447,000!

There is only one little problem . . .

On a typical major label deal, your recoupables are \$500,000.

So, after selling one million CDs, you are \$53,000 in debt!!!

YOU HAVE TO SELL OVER 1,250,000 COPIES JUST TO MAKE:

NOTHING!!!!!

Disclaimer: If this seems confusing, it’s supposed to be!

Record Stores can return about 20% of their stock to the label for a Return Credit of about \$10 each record. That’s a lot more than they can make on a normal sale! So there’s a big incentive to return records. The artist does not make any royalties on Returned Records.

But George, the label doesn’t make any money on the deal either, right?

WRONG!!

They DO make money! Here’s how:

1. Label SELLS Returned Records to One Stops @ \$2 each. One stops can return a portion of the records to the label for \$10 Credit each!

2. One Stops sell “returns” to Mom & Pop stores for about \$4 each. Mom & Pop stores can return records to One Stops, who return them to labels.

3. Big Chain stores can return loads of records to label (\$10 credit).

4. A label can sell these new “returns” to Rack Jobbers @ \$2 each. (Rack jobbers can’t return records to labels . . . But they can return them to One Stops.)

5. Rack Jobbers sell “returns” to One Stops @ \$4 each.

6. One Stops return records (again) to labels for \$10 Credit.

7. Label sells “Returned Returns” AGAIN to Rack Jobbers. (\$2 more bucks)

8. This “Game” can go around 3 or 4 times. The label makes mucho bread.

9. Each credit is a commitment by One Stops and stores to buy new records from the label!

10. The label can treat all of these credits (receivables) as cash to run their business - interest-free.

11. The Artist never gets a single penny of Royalties on any of these transactions!!

Well, what about these Indie Labels I have been hearing so much about George?

• They can make a profit selling fewer records (Lower Recoupables)

• Artists may be treated better and they have more creative control

• They may still care about “art” and artist development (this has changed)

• The artists have greater bargaining power in their contracts

• They have less money

• They have weak promotion and distribution

• They are less stable

• Some Indies also have horrible contracts!

WELL, WHAT DO I DO????

Remeber Knowledge is Power. There are tens of thousands of people trying to do exactly what you're doing. Set yourself apart and read some books. Here is a list of some amazing books that will do just that. If put into effect with your talent and new business mindset, you will be unstoppable.

2001, SAGE Publications, ISBN# 0-7619-1667-9 and 8th  ed., 2006 ISBN 1-4129-0438-2

"SAMPLING/ASHBURNE"

Sampling in the Record Industry, Michael Ashburne, Esq., 1994, the Law Offices of

"SONGWRITERS MARKET"

SONGWRITERS MARKET, Annual, Writers Digest Books, available at most bookstores,

e.g. Waldenbooks, Daltons, Borders, Barnes & Noble

"NOLO"

MUSIC LAW - How to Run Your Band's Business, by Attorney Richard Stim, 1998,

Nolo Press, ISBN# 0-87337-438-X; and 2006, ISBN-13: 9781413305173

"MUSICIAN'S LEGAL GUIDE"

Musician's Business & Legal Guide, Edited & Compiled by Mark Halloran, Esq., 1991

(There are now more current editions), Prentice-Hall, ISBN# 0-13-605585-0

"PASSMAN"

All You Need to Know About the Music Business, Donald S. Passman (Attorney),

1997, Simon & Schuster, ISBN# 0-684-83600-9 (Note: Newer Version Now Available)

"WILSON"

Making it in the Music Business, Lee Wilson, Attorney at Law, 1999, Allworth Press,

ISBN# 1-58115-036-9

"BRANDT"

Stay Out of Court and In Business, Steven C. Brandt & Stafford Frey Copper,

Attorneys, 1997, Archipelago Publishing, ISBN# 1-888925-10-8

"PLAIN ENGLISH"

The Music Business (Explained in Plain English), David Naggar, Esq. & Jeffrey

Brandstetter, Esq., 1997, ISBN# 0-9648709-0-8 (Note: Newer Version Now Available)

"BRAHENY"

The Craft and Business of SONGWRITING, John Braheny, 1995, Writers Digest

Books, ISBN# 0-89879-653-9

"CONFESSIONS"

Confessions of a Record Producer, Moses Avalon,

2002, Backbeat Books, ISBN# 0-87930-660-2

"BURGESS"

The Art of Record Production, Richard James Burgess,

1997, Omnibus Press, ISBN# 0-7119-5552-2

"POE"

A Songwriter's Guide — MUSIC PUBLISHING, Randy Poe, 1997, Writers Digest Books,

ISBN# 0-89879-754-3; and 2005, ISBN-13: 9781582973838

This Business of Music, Krasilovsky and Shemel, 8th  Edition, 2000, Billboard Books,

ISBN#:0-8230-7757-8; and 10th  ed., 2007, ISBN-13: 9780823077236

“RAPAPORT”

How to Make and Sell Your Own Recording, Diane Sward Rapaport, 5th  Edition, 1999,

Prentice Hall, ISBN# 0-13–923947-2

“SCHWARTZ”

Start and Run Your Own Record Label, Daylle Deanna Schwartz, 1998, Billboard,

ISBN# 0-8230-7924-4; and 2003, ISBN-13: 9780823084333

“SECRETS”

Secrets of Negotiating a Record Contract, Moses Avalon, 2001, Backbeat Books,

ISBN# 0-87930-636-X

“KIMPEL”

Networking in the Music Business, Dan Kimpel, 2000, Mix Books, 0-87288-727-8

“HATSCHEK”

How to get a Job in the Music and Recording Industry, Keith Hatschek, 2001, Berklee

Press, ISBN# 0-634-01868-x

The Copyright Permission and Libel Handbook, Lloyd J. Jassin & Steven C.

Schechter, 1998 Wiley, ISBN# 0-471-14654-4

“PRIMER”

A Music Business Primer,  Diane Rapaport, 2003, Prentice Hall, ISBN 0-13-034077-4

“THALL”

What They’ll Never Tell You About the Music Business,  Peter M. Thall, Billboard

Books, 2002 ISBN 0-8230-8439-6

“SWEENEY”

Tim Sweeney’s Guide to Releasing Independent Records, Tim Sweeney & Mark

Geller, TSA Books, 1996 ISBN 0-9651316-2

“SECRETS” 2nd  ed.

Secrets of Negotiating a Record Contract, 2nd  Edition, Moses Avalon, 2002, Backbeat

Books, ISBN# 0-87930-660-2

“SECRETS” 3rd ed.

Secrets of Negotiating a Record Contract, 3rd  Edition, Moses Avalon, 2006, Backbeat

Books, ISBN# 0-87930-874-5

“3M”

Million Dollar Mistakes, Moses Avalon, 2005, Backbeat Books,

ISBN-13: 9780879308278

Blogosphere #2: An Autobiography of a Rock And Roll Record

Forward:

Brad is doing his first collection of blog posts about his record. He is going to be telling the story of how the record went from idea to action to product. Brad was an active musician for years but as life went on, life got in the way.

Love for art never goes away, however.

Shortly after we got 5/4 rolling he and I began work on his new Album. It is still in progress but it is moving quickly. This is his narrative. This is the beginning of his venture with his music rekindling and restarting, in many ways, right where it left off several years ago.

This is

"An Autobiography of a Rock And Roll Record"

Once upon a time in a college town far away, for some people that is, I started performing with alternative Rock and Roll bands. I was lucky. There was plenty of venues and college kids that provided a scene that reflected what was going on all over. It meant music had a place to thrive. The fraternities could not get enough of the new Rock and Roll emanating from college radio. I played Bass in some bands. Guitars in other bands. I played cover tunes; other peoples music. And, I wrote and performed songs that I wrote. It was an experience.

Ultimately you finish school, Grad school, Blah Blah Blah… not important for this story. Let us just say time passed. I stopped playing music. Then one day I saw Joe Smothers in a restaurant. He played for years with Doc Watson; and taught me to Travis Pick when I was sixteen. But I was many years away from the young man Joe met at the Mill House in Valdosta, Georgia. He asked me about my music. I said I did not play anymore. He looked upon me as if I was sick. We talked. I wondered If something was wrong. With me.

That being said, who am I you might like to know. I am one of the five partners of the 5/4 Management Group. We have a recording studio and rehearsal space that we rent to musicians and any artist that can come up with at least \$150 a month for work space, and a showcase venue for bands and visual artists. The Space is meant to incubate new art. We want everyone to be involved.

Yet there is, of course, more then one reason why I'm telling the Autobiography of my record. I am a song writer and musician. After all these years of obscurity I admit I am looking forward to telling a little of that tale. Know that people create art for themselves first, without others, hoping to share something of our collective human experience. As for Fame… Who Knows… I never was…and the few famous people I have met, in the varying fields they represented, seemed perfectly normal, with the same shared aspirations as everyone. I think the consensus is, it is hard to be famous with everyone.

5/4 gave me the opportunity to work with a great studio and the sound engineers that really make the music happen. I wanted to be back around music. However, I was sitting in the stands at a Braves Baseball game when I thought; could I play my music again? I asked my brother Dan, “do you think I should play music again?” The response I got was unexpected. He said, “I think you should; What was that song…?” And he proceeded to sing varying lyrics to songs I wrote and performed, some of which, I had not thought of in nearly 20 years. I did not think anyone remembered; I was wrong.

A Rock and Roll record! The cover art of the albums we love are as familiar as pictures of old friends. Music is associated with these images that participate in the biographies of our lives, loves, hopes, and tragedies. And, as familiar as the sound of our music becomes few of us really know the story behind the records and music that define the margins of a time, or friendship. The purpose of this story is to tell the tale of one Rock and Roll record; My Rock and Roll record, from the beginning of the story to the end: For You.

My hopes are that we all learn something from the process. I would like to learn more about myself and the people that play music with me. And my hope for you is that you learn something concerning the recording industry, music, aesthetics, and hopefully…Yourself Too. Documenting a process provides us a moment in time; with an open future. I am excited to watch this future unfold, and I hope you are too. Recording a record is about choices. We all hope to make good choices in life; as in art. This journey we will share.

So an older man looked at a picture in an old newspaper of a younger version of himself. And that is when I decided to see if I could still write and sing songs. That’s me, second from the left.

The Blogosphere!

Welcome to the first of many 5/4 blog posts!

I am Steven Jarvis, one of the studio engineers at 5/4 Music Space.

I have been writing on music for quite awhile now. 5+ years maybe?

The 5/4 team had the idea to start doing these blog posts as a way to further educate people on everything music. 5/4 is set up as a "Music Incubator". Essentially, it is a safe place for creatives to come and make art.

5/4 has one goal: to facilitate/develop musical art.

Some of these posts will be technical in nature in order to further educate young artists.

Some will be simple updates on day to day happenings here at 5/4.

Some will be about creative practices or maybe songwriting.

We plan to talk a little bit about EVERYTHING that we do here.

With this in mind, we begin our new blog!

Blogosphere #1: Reviewing the AKG Perception 220 Condenser Mic

I chose this mic as the first topic simply because it was the first condenser mic that I ever owned. It has a special place in my heart because I bought this microphone before I even knew that I wanted to pursue audio production.

TRIGGER WARNING: I AM ABOUT TO GET A LITTLE SCIENTIFIC

The Perception 220 is a fixed cardioid, large diaphragm FET condenser mic. It's frequency response ranges from 20-20,000Hz and is fairly flat. In theory, it could be a perfect vox microphone in a studio setting because of how flat the response is.

Here is a picture of the graphed response:

http://en.audiofanzine.com/condenser-microphone/akg/Perception-220/medias/pictures/a.play,m.923034.html

It is also a nice overhead.
I've only used it as a single overhead, but a matching pair would sound delicious because of where the peak sits on the high frequencies(somewhere between 10 and 11k).
It's got a high pass filter or bass rolloff switch that will bring down the lows starting at about 300Hz.
It also has a pad switch that brings it down -20dB which has led me to experiment with it in live situations. It works great as a live overhead, room mic, and Bass Cab mic.

It comes with a shock mount and a decent plastic carrying case. It is on sale for 150\$ new. When I purchased it a few years back, I think it was closer to 250\$. 150\$ for this microphone is a steal.

My favorite thing about this mic is that I've yet to get tired of it. As it is a 150\$ microphone, that is a big deal!
I also love that it gives so much freedom to E.Q. in post! Equally captured frequencies are incredibly helpful when doing a large mix!
Where the highs are smoothly accented in the response, it is also able to capture very natural sounds. I love using it to record live acoustic sessions. Great for catching the dynamic of the room.
This mic was recommended to me by a friend and fellow sound engineer years ago. I bought it as my first condenser. It still finds it's way into most of my studio projects somehow or another.

I highly recommend it to anyone looking for a new mic to add to their collection but especially to those who are new to the world of pro audio and in need of a first decent and decently priced condenser mic. It is all around trust worthy.

Pros:
- Price Point; It will pay for itself in one session.
- Flat Frequency Response makes it very versatile.
- Very smooth sound.