|
Post by indiehouse on Dec 19, 2017 15:16:15 GMT -6
Well indiehouse, considering the lengths of time, research and effort many of us here have made over years and years, trying to find the one mic that suits us best, and considering they usually cost from $5,000 -$18,000, I'd say searching for our "holy grail" is more like an accurate description than hype. Think of all mic builds, modding, buying, selling, making demos, manufacturers claims, clone makers, shootouts, trading and deep research, reading ads everywhere, posting videos, more research and endless discussions of minutia, all in pursuit of The One. Does it exist, many of us have given up, but some have reached their goal, I think. Just ask Johnken, he knows all about it ;-) Meh, for me, they're tools, not religious relics. I find that term to fall squarely into the hype category. I just picture light shining down from the sky, and a choir of angelic voices all singing in unison as clouds part and the mic ascends to the heavens. But whatevs, man! To each their own. I find the description more silly than useful.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Dec 19, 2017 15:29:29 GMT -6
You should reach out to Bowie and buy a NOS Mullard 12at7...it will be dramatically smoother in the mids in comparison to the EH 6072 it comes with. It's not a subtle improvement.
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Dec 19, 2017 15:38:12 GMT -6
That was a really cool review... thanks for posting all that.
|
|
|
Post by Vincent R. on Dec 19, 2017 19:10:53 GMT -6
indiehouse, did you try the Upton next to the REDD in low contour mode? I feel like no one talks about it with it's second voicing.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Dec 19, 2017 23:12:30 GMT -6
Jeez, indiehouse, after five years of reading about people endlessly searching for the mic that suits them best, it seems like finding a wife is easier. Considering the lengths people have gone to, auditioning, buying, selling, modding, and on an on, I thought the metaphor of the search for the holy grail was a fair description, certainly not "silly" in this context. I don't know anyone who goes through the pains half the guys on the forum have gone through to find the best fit or value in a mic when buying and using a "tool".
If it's just a tool to you, fine, but I've had experiences where certain mics have enabled me to rise above what I thought my limits were, and those moments were a lot more special than any tool experience I've ever had. Your experience may be different, and I respect your approach, but you seem to be bent on diminishing mine.
For me, a great mic is a conduit for the expression of my deepest emotions and ideas. Using a vintage U67 and an original C12 and recently, the Chandler REDD, enabled me to be satisfied the mic let all I had to offer come through.
Just ask Vincent or Johnken or Ragan what their search for the perfect mic has been like, I know it certainly wasn't like a trip to Home Depot for a new drill.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,939
|
Post by ericn on Dec 20, 2017 7:45:42 GMT -6
There is a huge different between finding a mic to record ones self and mics to record others! Sometimes you have to step out of your own little space to understand the needs of others.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Dec 20, 2017 7:53:10 GMT -6
I was thinking about that, and I suppose it all depends on who's discussing a thing like a mic. An engineer might approach it quite differently than an artist. An artist generally is trying to find a mic that brings out their absolute best, regardless of how it is for other vocalists. I know of one major artist who just passed last year who was willing to pay whatever it took to own one particular mic used is a session, and he did manage to get it, paying way more than the usual crazy high price vintage mics sell for. So, clearly, for some artists, there are some very special mics, and they'll go to almost any length to obtain it.
Those of us whose pockets aren't quite as deep end up searching and searching, seemingly endlessly, just to get as close as we can to what we really want. Kinda like the search for the holy grail, no?
The REDD would do me just fine if I could afford it.
|
|
|
Post by donr on Dec 20, 2017 8:09:18 GMT -6
Informative review, indiehouse. I agree about the shock mount that comes with the Chandler. it's not worthy of a mic that good or that expensive. That said, it still works.
Also the Chandler will pick up your room. The mic has big ears. Even in cardioid. I was gratified that the song I posted earlier in this thread, which had 8 tracks of Chandler REDD, my room (Thanks Jeff Hedbeck!) sounded pretty good.
|
|
|
Post by adamjbrass on Dec 20, 2017 8:13:38 GMT -6
try to remember that the "holy grail" is a religious artifact...and we all know not everyone is the same religion.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Dec 20, 2017 9:00:48 GMT -6
Hey Don, I too found the shock mount just adequate. I had to twist super hard to get it to stay, and it din't inspire confidence it wouldn't slip. If the price went up $50-$ 100 I think it would serve Chandler well to upgrade that. It's been a while since I had an actual Neumann shock mount in the house, but the Chandler didn't seem as solid. For all I know, they're the same. Since the mic is so innovative, I thought they might do something just as cool for the shock mount. Look at the Lauten Eden. I'm not saying this style would work for the Chandler, but you sure get the feeling they looked at the shock mount seriously, and that makes you feel the same kind of care was given the mic. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Dec 20, 2017 9:03:09 GMT -6
There is a huge different between finding a mic to record ones self and mics to record others! Sometimes you have to step out of your own little space to understand the needs of others. Amen brother! Sing it! Was just thinking about working with a former bandmate on our old abandoned record lately, needed a few things re-sung, I put up a UMT70S, a Max U67, and a DIY MK47 with Blue line capsule....we used all of them, depended on the song and the part in question. All different, all appropriate.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Dec 20, 2017 9:05:33 GMT -6
Look at the Lauten Eden. I'm not saying this style would work for the Chandler, but you sure get the feeling they looked at the shock mount seriously, and that makes you feel the same kind of care was given the mic. Looks a lot like the Audio Technica. Which is with a $3500 mic that no one talks about. www.audio-technica.com/cms/wired_mics/f0d9ef584e0dda3e/index.html
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Dec 20, 2017 10:20:04 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Dec 20, 2017 10:41:31 GMT -6
indiehouse , did you try the Upton next to the REDD in low contour mode? I feel like no one talks about it with it's second voicing. I did. The low contour mode kinda dials down that low-mid thing a bit, and maybe lifts the highs a tad? I'm finding the LC mode coupled with the drive mode pretty addicting, and gets me closest to the Upton sound. I also pulled up my old Bock 251 files and compared it to the Upton and REDD. Holy smokes! That Bock sounded like money. It was foolish of me to sell it, given that I paid less for it than the REDD or Upton, even with the deals I got. Damnit. The Bock is smooth and refined. Clean is the word I'd use. It's a big and clean sounding mic. The low end is weighty and deep, but not round or big like the Chandler. The Upton is rolled off in the lows, as per 251 spec. I think Bock decided not to roll off the low end on his mic. Also, the high end on the Bock is silky, smooth and shimmery. There is a beautiful air to the Bock that I don't get on either the Chandler or the Upton. In fact, in comparison to the Bock, both the REDD and Upton sound less finished, if you can believe that. The Bock sounded more open and airy than either the REDD or Upton. Given that the Upton and Bock are two takes on a 251, I might be inclined to go with the Bock based on this solo'd test. The REDD sounds like it has a slight mid-range push around the 1khz mark or so, and the Upton sounds a bit veiled in comparison. The Bock sounds like a polished and perfectly EQ'd mic. I did put the REDD through an RS124, EQ-2NV and a Zulu. I boosted a bit of air at 15khz, and cut a bit at low at 180 and a bit of the boxy mids at 700ish, followed with the Zulu to smooth the top a bit (with LC and Drive both engaged, the top can run away from you a bit on the REDD). The REDD takes processing like a champ. Sounded much more like the expensive Bock sound. So the question is, do you start with a more malleable raw source that you can mold into many different things, or do you take an already finished sound? I suppose the airy and polished sound of the Bock might not be appropriate for all tasks. Perfect for more pop oriented stuff, but maybe not so much for more rootsy indie folk/rock type of stuff. I found it interesting that the REDD seemed more gritty compared to the Bock. I don't know if gritty is the right word. Maybe colored? More vintage compared to the more modern Bock sound? And this only tells half the story. In the context of a mix, maybe the colored mid-range push of the REDD, and even more so with the Upton, could be just the thing to cut through a mix. I think the Upton, and the REDD too, maybe more of a vintage sound, and the Bock more of a clean and modern sound. The Bock more open, airy and weighty, where the Upton, and to a lesser extent the REDD, has a tad less open sound, and maybe a bit cotton-y in the mid range, less shimmery air.
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Dec 20, 2017 11:19:00 GMT -6
Jeez, indiehouse, after five years of reading about people endlessly searching for the mic that suits them best, it seems like finding a wife is easier. Considering the lengths people have gone to, auditioning, buying, selling, modding, and on an on, I thought the metaphor of the search for the holy grail was a fair description, certainly not "silly" in this context. I don't know anyone who goes through the pains half the guys on the forum have gone through to find the best fit or value in a mic when buying and using a "tool". If it's just a tool to you, fine, but I've had experiences where certain mics have enabled me to rise above what I thought my limits were, and those moments were a lot more special than any tool experience I've ever had. Your experience may be different, and I respect your approach, but you seem to be bent on diminishing mine. For me, a great mic is a conduit for the expression of my deepest emotions and ideas. Using a vintage U67 and an original C12 and recently, the Chandler REDD, enabled me to be satisfied the mic let all I had to offer come through. Just ask Vincent or Johnken or Ragan what their search for the perfect mic has been like, I know it certainly wasn't like a trip to Home Depot for a new drill. Well, spending $5K on a drill warrants a little more time and consideration than a trip to Home Depot. But no offense, mate! It makes zero difference to me whatchacallit. Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Dec 20, 2017 13:07:40 GMT -6
Fair enough :-)
As for the seemingly never ending mic search, my friend bought a very reasonably priced Lewitt mic this week, (I think it's the LTC 640) and it's flawless. The way I mean that is there isn't an obvious annoying fault, like too much sibilance, unbalanced, bad off axis response, Chinese capsule syndrome, etc. It's a lot like an AKG 414, with a richer bottom. The Roswell Delphos was another mic very good mic under $1,000. I got to try it two months ago, and that mic had no outstanding weaknesses either. You could those mics to make an album and not regret the sounds. If they happened to be in a good room, I bet they'd be really good. I liked them because although they were similar to classic mics, (414, U87), but they sounded original enough to be interesting in their own right.
I'm anxious to try the Stam 47 and 67. One of those babies might just get me close enough to where I want to go. Then, I can forget about the Chandler Redd, or the Io Mk67, or the Soyuz 0-17, and just enjoy having a mic I can afford and use without cringing.
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Dec 20, 2017 14:06:31 GMT -6
indiehouse , did you try the Upton next to the REDD in low contour mode? I feel like no one talks about it with it's second voicing. I did. The low contour mode kinda dials down that low-mid thing a bit, and maybe lifts the highs a tad? I'm finding the LC mode coupled with the drive mode pretty addicting, and gets me closest to the Upton sound. I also pulled up my old Bock 251 files and compared it to the Upton and REDD. Holy smokes! That Bock sounded like money. It was foolish of me to sell it, given that I paid less for it than the REDD or Upton, even with the deals I got. Damnit. The Bock is smooth and refined. Clean is the word I'd use. It's a big and clean sounding mic. The low end is weighty and deep, but not round or big like the Chandler. The Upton is rolled off in the lows, as per 251 spec. I think Bock decided not to roll off the low end on his mic. Also, the high end on the Bock is silky, smooth and shimmery. There is a beautiful air to the Bock that I don't get on either the Chandler or the Upton. In fact, in comparison to the Bock, both the REDD and Upton sound less finished, if you can believe that. The Bock sounded more open and airy than either the REDD or Upton. Given that the Upton and Bock are two takes on a 251, I might be inclined to go with the Bock based on this solo'd test. The REDD sounds like it has a slight mid-range push around the 1khz mark or so, and the Upton sounds a bit veiled in comparison. The Bock sounds like a polished and perfectly EQ'd mic. I did put the REDD through an RS124, EQ-2NV and a Zulu. I boosted a bit of air at 15khz, and cut a bit at low at 180 and a bit of the boxy mids at 700ish, followed with the Zulu to smooth the top a bit (with LC and Drive both engaged, the top can run away from you a bit on the REDD). The REDD takes processing like a champ. Sounded much more like the expensive Bock sound. So the question is, do you start with a more malleable raw source that you can mold into many different things, or do you take an already finished sound? I suppose the airy and polished sound of the Bock might not be appropriate for all tasks. Perfect for more pop oriented stuff, but maybe not so much for more rootsy indie folk/rock type of stuff. I found it interesting that the REDD seemed more gritty compared to the Bock. I don't know if gritty is the right word. Maybe colored? More vintage compared to the more modern Bock sound? And this only tells half the story. In the context of a mix, maybe the colored mid-range push of the REDD, and even more so with the Upton, could be just the thing to cut through a mix. I think the Upton, and the REDD too, maybe more of a vintage sound, and the Bock more of a clean and modern sound. The Bock more open, airy and weighty, where the Upton, and to a lesser extent the REDD, has a tad less open sound, and maybe a bit cotton-y in the mid range, less shimmery air. Textured is the word I was thinking of, not gritty (comparing the Bock to the REDD). Both really detailed mics. But the Bock is clean where the REDD/Upton is textured.
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Dec 20, 2017 14:26:16 GMT -6
I've heard the Lauten LA-320 might be a good option for an affordable 251 sound.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Dec 20, 2017 14:50:39 GMT -6
The Lewitt 440 Pure sounded great in a Warren Heart/produce like a Pro live episode last week. He has a vintage U47 there, and the singer sounded better on the Lewiitt, so they tracked with it. It seems all the Lewitt's deserve a fair listen.
I almost got a Lauten Atlantis at one time, but the Blackspade UM-17R beat it out. The Lauten was clearly a good mic though, so I wouldn't't be surprised if one of their other models was good.
I'd love to hear a few more tracks done with the REDD.
|
|
|
Post by spock on Dec 20, 2017 16:02:01 GMT -6
I'd love to hear a few more tracks done with the REDD. Coming up... We're just finishing the article on a DECCA Artist who used the REDD Microphone on their for the vocal on a recent single; processing was minimal; the artist is between 2.5-3' off the mic.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Dec 20, 2017 17:42:05 GMT -6
indiehouse , did you try the Upton next to the REDD in low contour mode? I feel like no one talks about it with it's second voicing. I did. The low contour mode kinda dials down that low-mid thing a bit, and maybe lifts the highs a tad? I'm finding the LC mode coupled with the drive mode pretty addicting, and gets me closest to the Upton sound. I also pulled up my old Bock 251 files and compared it to the Upton and REDD. Holy smokes! That Bock sounded like money. It was foolish of me to sell it, given that I paid less for it than the REDD or Upton, even with the deals I got. Damnit. The Bock is smooth and refined. Clean is the word I'd use. It's a big and clean sounding mic. The low end is weighty and deep, but not round or big like the Chandler. The Upton is rolled off in the lows, as per 251 spec. I think Bock decided not to roll off the low end on his mic. Also, the high end on the Bock is silky, smooth and shimmery. There is a beautiful air to the Bock that I don't get on either the Chandler or the Upton. In fact, in comparison to the Bock, both the REDD and Upton sound less finished, if you can believe that. The Bock sounded more open and airy than either the REDD or Upton. Given that the Upton and Bock are two takes on a 251, I might be inclined to go with the Bock based on this solo'd test. The REDD sounds like it has a slight mid-range push around the 1khz mark or so, and the Upton sounds a bit veiled in comparison. The Bock sounds like a polished and perfectly EQ'd mic. I did put the REDD through an RS124, EQ-2NV and a Zulu. I boosted a bit of air at 15khz, and cut a bit at low at 180 and a bit of the boxy mids at 700ish, followed with the Zulu to smooth the top a bit (with LC and Drive both engaged, the top can run away from you a bit on the REDD). The REDD takes processing like a champ. Sounded much more like the expensive Bock sound. So the question is, do you start with a more malleable raw source that you can mold into many different things, or do you take an already finished sound? I suppose the airy and polished sound of the Bock might not be appropriate for all tasks. Perfect for more pop oriented stuff, but maybe not so much for more rootsy indie folk/rock type of stuff. I found it interesting that the REDD seemed more gritty compared to the Bock. I don't know if gritty is the right word. Maybe colored? More vintage compared to the more modern Bock sound? And this only tells half the story. In the context of a mix, maybe the colored mid-range push of the REDD, and even more so with the Upton, could be just the thing to cut through a mix. I think the Upton, and the REDD too, maybe more of a vintage sound, and the Bock more of a clean and modern sound. The Bock more open, airy and weighty, where the Upton, and to a lesser extent the REDD, has a tad less open sound, and maybe a bit cotton-y in the mid range, less shimmery air. I don’t think of rolled off lows when I think of 251s. You should hear Jeff’s original. It’s huge and somewhat rolled off on top. In fact, I think I might have a file that I sang on his. Might sing the same thing on mine and post them.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Dec 20, 2017 17:44:29 GMT -6
I did. The low contour mode kinda dials down that low-mid thing a bit, and maybe lifts the highs a tad? I'm finding the LC mode coupled with the drive mode pretty addicting, and gets me closest to the Upton sound. I also pulled up my old Bock 251 files and compared it to the Upton and REDD. Holy smokes! That Bock sounded like money. It was foolish of me to sell it, given that I paid less for it than the REDD or Upton, even with the deals I got. Damnit. The Bock is smooth and refined. Clean is the word I'd use. It's a big and clean sounding mic. The low end is weighty and deep, but not round or big like the Chandler. The Upton is rolled off in the lows, as per 251 spec. I think Bock decided not to roll off the low end on his mic. Also, the high end on the Bock is silky, smooth and shimmery. There is a beautiful air to the Bock that I don't get on either the Chandler or the Upton. In fact, in comparison to the Bock, both the REDD and Upton sound less finished, if you can believe that. The Bock sounded more open and airy than either the REDD or Upton. Given that the Upton and Bock are two takes on a 251, I might be inclined to go with the Bock based on this solo'd test. The REDD sounds like it has a slight mid-range push around the 1khz mark or so, and the Upton sounds a bit veiled in comparison. The Bock sounds like a polished and perfectly EQ'd mic. I did put the REDD through an RS124, EQ-2NV and a Zulu. I boosted a bit of air at 15khz, and cut a bit at low at 180 and a bit of the boxy mids at 700ish, followed with the Zulu to smooth the top a bit (with LC and Drive both engaged, the top can run away from you a bit on the REDD). The REDD takes processing like a champ. Sounded much more like the expensive Bock sound. So the question is, do you start with a more malleable raw source that you can mold into many different things, or do you take an already finished sound? I suppose the airy and polished sound of the Bock might not be appropriate for all tasks. Perfect for more pop oriented stuff, but maybe not so much for more rootsy indie folk/rock type of stuff. I found it interesting that the REDD seemed more gritty compared to the Bock. I don't know if gritty is the right word. Maybe colored? More vintage compared to the more modern Bock sound? And this only tells half the story. In the context of a mix, maybe the colored mid-range push of the REDD, and even more so with the Upton, could be just the thing to cut through a mix. I think the Upton, and the REDD too, maybe more of a vintage sound, and the Bock more of a clean and modern sound. The Bock more open, airy and weighty, where the Upton, and to a lesser extent the REDD, has a tad less open sound, and maybe a bit cotton-y in the mid range, less shimmery air. Textured is the word I was thinking of, not gritty (comparing the Bock to the REDD). Both really detailed mics. But the Bock is clean where the REDD/Upton is textured. The signature of a great 251 IMO is the “reedy” quality. It’s almost buzzy or something. Like it captures this vibration in the lower octaves.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Dec 20, 2017 21:44:20 GMT -6
Beck's Sea Change is a good modern example of the 251 in action.
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Dec 21, 2017 8:11:32 GMT -6
I did. The low contour mode kinda dials down that low-mid thing a bit, and maybe lifts the highs a tad? I'm finding the LC mode coupled with the drive mode pretty addicting, and gets me closest to the Upton sound. I also pulled up my old Bock 251 files and compared it to the Upton and REDD. Holy smokes! That Bock sounded like money. It was foolish of me to sell it, given that I paid less for it than the REDD or Upton, even with the deals I got. Damnit. The Bock is smooth and refined. Clean is the word I'd use. It's a big and clean sounding mic. The low end is weighty and deep, but not round or big like the Chandler. The Upton is rolled off in the lows, as per 251 spec. I think Bock decided not to roll off the low end on his mic. Also, the high end on the Bock is silky, smooth and shimmery. There is a beautiful air to the Bock that I don't get on either the Chandler or the Upton. In fact, in comparison to the Bock, both the REDD and Upton sound less finished, if you can believe that. The Bock sounded more open and airy than either the REDD or Upton. Given that the Upton and Bock are two takes on a 251, I might be inclined to go with the Bock based on this solo'd test. The REDD sounds like it has a slight mid-range push around the 1khz mark or so, and the Upton sounds a bit veiled in comparison. The Bock sounds like a polished and perfectly EQ'd mic. I did put the REDD through an RS124, EQ-2NV and a Zulu. I boosted a bit of air at 15khz, and cut a bit at low at 180 and a bit of the boxy mids at 700ish, followed with the Zulu to smooth the top a bit (with LC and Drive both engaged, the top can run away from you a bit on the REDD). The REDD takes processing like a champ. Sounded much more like the expensive Bock sound. So the question is, do you start with a more malleable raw source that you can mold into many different things, or do you take an already finished sound? I suppose the airy and polished sound of the Bock might not be appropriate for all tasks. Perfect for more pop oriented stuff, but maybe not so much for more rootsy indie folk/rock type of stuff. I found it interesting that the REDD seemed more gritty compared to the Bock. I don't know if gritty is the right word. Maybe colored? More vintage compared to the more modern Bock sound? And this only tells half the story. In the context of a mix, maybe the colored mid-range push of the REDD, and even more so with the Upton, could be just the thing to cut through a mix. I think the Upton, and the REDD too, maybe more of a vintage sound, and the Bock more of a clean and modern sound. The Bock more open, airy and weighty, where the Upton, and to a lesser extent the REDD, has a tad less open sound, and maybe a bit cotton-y in the mid range, less shimmery air. I don’t think of rolled off lows when I think of 251s. You should hear Jeff’s original. It’s huge and somewhat rolled off on top. In fact, I think I might have a file that I sang on his. Might sing the same thing on mine and post them. That's what I thought. The Upton does have a lot less low end (or maybe low-mids is the more accurate range) than the REDD and the Bock is way more extended and weighty in the low end. I also found this blurb from a TapeOp interview with David Bock where he describes that the original 251 circuit was designed to take away some bass of the CK12 capsule. TapeOp: When you're doing something like the 251, how close do you feel you get to the original Telefunken (Made by AKG in Vienna, Austria) ELA M 251 microphone? David Bock: Our goal with the 251 was always meant to be my enhanced version of a 251. CK12 capsules are a wonderfully unique capsule that almost always have a unique flat mid-range and are capable of a tremendous amount of low end. The original 251 had a lot of devices in the amplifier to take that bass away. I decided I didn't like that. If I want a high pass filter I'll do it at the console. I eliminated those elements and extended the bandwith down to 5 Hz. So the capsule is a version of the CK12. They have a flatter midrange, from 3 to 5 kHz than most of the AKG capsules. It's a nice, high-end frequency peak - it's not over the top.
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Dec 21, 2017 8:26:26 GMT -6
Textured is the word I was thinking of, not gritty (comparing the Bock to the REDD). Both really detailed mics. But the Bock is clean where the REDD/Upton is textured. The signature of a great 251 IMO is the “reedy” quality. It’s almost buzzy or something. Like it captures this vibration in the lower octaves. That's what I'm hearing with the Upton. There is some interesting harmonic content going on in the Upton that's just not there in the REDD. I think that's why I'm hearing the Upton as being a "sweeter" sounding mic. I'm really drawn to the 251 sound, but I almost feel guilty for admitting that after all the user feedback saying the REDD is beating the classics. I think it's my room. I think the REDD needs to be in a good room because you really need to be off the mic some distance or it sounds super close and present. I'm finding the pickup pattern to be a little wider than either the Upton or the MKU67, which improves off-axis response (wide sweet spot), but inherently you're going to get more room sound. I can get up on the Upton or the MKU67 closer without it sounding overbearingly big like it does on the REDD. I think the REDD is a first-class tool that needs to be used in a first-class environment on first-class talent. Me? I'm just a plaid shirt, boot-wearing indie rocker guy who does my best to make music that I find interesting. I don't know that I'm the intended target of the REDD. I'm still going to give it a bit more time before final decision, but my gut is saying to renovate my new room first, then deal with mics.
|
|