ATM350 vs. PRO35

[coveredinbees]

So here I am. I've got a K&K twin pickup installed on my mando. While as far as acoustic pickups go it's not terrible, and I've managed to spruce up the sound a bit with a preamp, I still find the pickup sound incredibly stale and lifeless.

So here I am, thinking about getting into a goose neck style condenser microphone. The standard seems to be the ATM350 (as used by Chris Thile), which as many of you know weighs in at $279 (this includes the phantom power pack, there is a $179 'ATM350cW' version that's supposed to be for the wireless system but I don't know if it's exactly the same microphone that includes a 4-pin to XLR connector, just no phantom box). The ATM350 has a counterpart which is the PRO35 which weighs in at $169, a much more manageable price.

So here's the real question. While Audio Technica's site describes the ATM350 as having a more equal frequency response and being less "crisp," their frequency response charts are nearly identical. Some people on forums here and elsewhere have said that the ATM350 is better, however I often tend to wonder if this is the well documented phenomenon "the gear placebo affect," a condition which occurs when people subconsciously think something sounds better to justify spending more money to themselves.

So I'm asking those with experience, if there is a marginal difference between the ATM350 and the PRO35... is it worth $110?

[Russ Jordan]

Not an answer to your question, but I have some friends who really like these:
http://www.bartlettaudio.com

NFI

[coveredinbees]

Not an answer to your question, but I have some friends who really like these:
http://www.bartlettaudio.com

NFI

Thanks Russ,

I might look into those. I have heard though that a major advantage of the AT350/PRO35 is that the goose neck acts as a sort of "shock mount" cutting down on the mechanical noise of the mando.

[almeriastrings]

Both the ATM350 and PRO 35 are excellent. I've used both extensively, not just on mandolins but on a whole range of instruments. I have to say that personally, I found it very hard to tell one from the other. They are very similar sounding. I also detected no difference in feedback performance between them either. Their off-axis rejection is also pretty much on a par. The 350 does have a high-pass filter option, but you probably have that on your mic pre and desk anyway... I actually found it made the mic sound somewhat 'thin' and a better result was obtained by leaving it off and rolling off the low end via the desk.

An earlier discussion on these:

http://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/sh...at-much-better

I would definitely get the XLR (not wireless versions). The wireless versions have a very 'fussy' connector and are not particularly easy to adapt to standard configuration. You really need the AT adapter which is not cheap, and you still have that connector...

I have a PRO 35 myself and have no complaints. As far as 'clip on' mic systems go, it is built to professional standards, is very reliable, and sounds good. The only significantly superior mic (in my opinion) is the DPA 4099. I'd save up more pennies and go for that rather than the ATM350 if I was looking for the next level from the PRO 35.

I would avoid mic systems that do not have any form of suspension/isolation mount as 'thumps' and handling noise can be a major issue with any clip-on mic - the PRO-35 and ATM350 both have very effective shock mounts. You also have some directional control via the flexi gooseneck.

PS: Should add that the 350 does have an optional hypercardiod element (you can't change the element on the PRO 35).... but.. by that time, you are up in DPA 4099 price range anyway..

[foldedpath]

Agreeing with Almeriastrings here, I recommend skipping the ATM350 and get the PRO 35, if you don't have a budget for the DPA 4099.

Having tried several different clip-on mics over the years on various instruments (including the ATM350), I think it makes sense to either go for what I'd consider the current "gold standard" with the DPA 4099 -- both for its feedback rejection/tone and excellent mounting system -- or else use one of the less expensive mics like the PRO 35 where the bang-for-buck is good.

One note about the Audio Technica mics -- the alligator clip at the end of the gooseneck works very well if you have a ToneGard on your mandolin as an attachment point. You can clip onto the back of ToneGard, and curl the gooseneck up over the lower side of the mandolin with the mic capsule pointing at the lower F hole (or oval hole). If you don't have a ToneGard, it might be a little trickier to find a good mounting point using the tailpiece or endpin. The DPA 4099 takes care of all that with a nicely designed carpenter jack system that clamps on the side of the mandolin.

For what it's worth, I have several DPA 4099's and clamp combinations for use with various instruments, and for the guitar player and fiddler I work with. I wouldn't use anything else. But it took several years of experimenting and saving up to get there.

[almeriastrings]

Worth adding, I think... a few "Tips and Tricks" with the AT mini-mic system.

1. You can buy the Unimount clip separately and add your own mic. They slide in and out easily and take any of the standard diameter AT lav mics. So, very easy to change from cardiod to omni, etc. The Unimount is very versatile and well made.. you can find them from around $30.

2. The mount, combined with a cardiod mic, is excellent on string bass. Clip to the bridge and aim at the treble F hole.

3. The ATM350 and PRO 35 include the XLR power unit with the AT Unipack connector, so you can easily change from XLR via the desk to wireless if you need to.

4. The AT 'SYSTEM 10' digital wireless is really superb. I've been using them for a while, and fidelity and reliability is first rate. Much better than several other systems I've also used over the years. Very easy setup, and sounds pretty much as good as wired. Very immune to interference.

5. You can mount the Uniclip in any place you need a visually unobtrusive mic... music stands, second mic on a mic stand, boom, pretty much anywhere you can clip it. Very handy. You can also glue a strong magnet to the alligator clip section and use that on flat metal surfaces. They are great in filming situations... black and very small, so easy to conceal, while the mic elements are excellent. The AT803 omni is outstanding for dialog and recording applications.

6. My one gripe with the AT system is the wireless system plugs (HRS connectors) used... they are fine as long as you don't need to take them apart or re-wire them, but if you do, they are horrible.

[Barry Wilson]

ok you guys have sold me, I want one so I can play my real mandolin... should work on the tenor banjo too

[Mattslouch]

Hi All,

Quick question, how are you adapting from the mini xlr on the ATM350 to the HRS on the bodypack?
All these different connectors seem to be a bit of pain.

[CelticDude]

I'm using the Pro 35 and think the sound is pretty good. I've never used the 350, so I can't compare. Ihave this attached to the DPA clip, which they sell separately. This took a bit of surgery and epoxy to attach the two, but it's quite solid. As with most such clips, the real trick is positioning the mic so that you don't bang it while picking.

[DougC]

I agree with everything so far as I have been using a pro 35 for many years. However I really don't think 'higher end' mics do any better in gig situations. Unless you have a concert hall with avid listeners I don't think it is worth the expense. Most wedding gigs and coffee houses and even churches don't have the acoustics to benefit the 'studio quality' mic set up.

Just my opinion of course. But with the same money I have bought three units and I really give them some hard use.

Also I avoid wireless situations. XLR is much more dependable.

[almeriastrings]

Hi All,

Quick question, how are you adapting from the mini xlr on the ATM350 to the HRS on the bodypack?
All these different connectors seem to be a bit of pain.

The ATM350 comes in two formats:

1) AT Wireless bodyback compatible (Hirose connector only) - ATM350CW
2) Complete with TA3F mini-XLR to full size XLR adapter (that also functions as a phantom power adapter and has a rolloff switch). This is my well-worn example:



That is just known as the ATM350 if supplied with the adapter. The adapter is also available separately.

AT8542 Power supply and adapter module

[Mattslouch]

Ah, I see thanks, so a whole second microphone for the switcheroo to wireless.
I think I'm not that tied to running free.

[JimKo]

I have been on a journey for a while to find the best method to make my mando louder without changing the sound of it. Started with a pick up which was too "rubber bandy" sounding and required hauling extra gear like a pre amp. The Baggs pickup picked up too much other noise for my less than delicate playing. For several years I used the Bartlett condenser mic referenced above. I liked it and you can't beat the mounting clip for ease and stability. It is a good piece of equipment.
At his point, based on a lot of Cafe info, I am trying the the Pro 35. It sounds great. Actually, it sounds just like my mando but louder. Unfortunately the mounting is a pain in the butt. There are several threads on this but basically if you don't have a good place to clip to you either end up spending another $60 for a violin mount or designing something on your own to keep it in place. Even with the clip I am still fooling with it, to keep it from falling off. My latest adjustments involve velcroing the cord to my strap and tightly mounting the clip, then removing it and tightening it another notch before sliding it back on. Even with the mounting issues I am liking it enough to stick with it. Now if someone would couple the sound of the Pro 35 with the mounting of the Bartlett I would be the first in line. And it would probably be a long line.

[almeriastrings]

Actually, there is a new version of the ATM350 coming out soon. It was announced and shown at the Pro Sound and Light Show in Germany just this last week. There are several new mounts (though the mic remains essentially the same apart from a few dB increase in maximum SPL handling that would only be relevant to drummers or those recording jet engines at close quarters).

Here it is

None of the new mounts seem to make much difference to mandolin players, though, from what I can see. Overall, I find clipping the to the finger-guard is the fastest and most stable method with the 'Universal' clip mount. That works really well.

I agree there is very little audible difference between the PRO35 and the ATM350 in a real-world situation (despite the fact the capsules are totally different). They both sound really excellent. Although I also have a DPA4099 I still like the AT's a lot and use them regularly on various instruments whenever a clip on is needed. For a stand mounted mic I also like the AT AE5100 = a really great sounding mic on mandolin or any acoustic instrument, but often overlooked for some reason.

[Harpua19]

I just picked up a used ATM35, the predecessor of the ATM350, for under $100. I just received the mic on Wednesday and used it at a gig last night. It worked well enough, with some minor feedback issues. I think a pre-amp would be a worthwhile investment, regardless of which mic you choose.

FWIW, according to this interview, Chris Thile uses the ATM35 : http://www.mandolincafe.com/news/pub...s_001436.shtml

Also, here's the Punch Brother's stage plot from Pickathon a few years back. It shows the whole band using the ATM35:
http://pickathon.com/docs/2010/2010S...sStagePlot.pdf

[almeriastrings]

I just received the mic on Wednesday and used it at a gig last night. It worked well enough, with some minor feedback issues. I think a pre-amp would be a worthwhile investment, regardless of which mic you choose.

If you are using the mic, and sound is coming out of the speakers... you already have a preamp.

It will not work at all without a preamp (and one that supplies phantom power, in addition).

If you really mean a separate - standalone - preamp, that depends entirely on what you are running it though. If you are going into a good quality mixer with respectable channel EQ's there would almost certainly be zero advantage in adding yet more electronics up front, and several disadvantages. The built in preamps on the vast majority of modern consoles and small format mixers are absolutely fine. Some are really excellent. In addition, if you are using a digital mixer, you will have far more sophisticated EQ and feedback busting tools at your disposal than you'll find in just about any analogue preamp. If you are plugging into a really basic system with poor preamps and useless channel EQ, then yes, possibly a standalone preamp wth better EQ might bring some advantages. It is not a given, however, that a separate preamp always helps.

To beat feedback with these mics you can do several things. First , pay special attention to the position (and level) of any stage monitors. Keep the monitor levels down as much as possible, and try not to work right on top of them. Get the mic capsule itself as close as practicable to the instrument consistent with the desired tone. Consider running an automatic feedback suppressor system on the monitors - these can work really well and can buy you quite a few extra dB before feedback becomes a problem. I recently tested the new DBX GORack and it works extremely well in that role. Just insert it in your monitor chain. It really does work. Very transparent, simple, fast operation and can make a big difference.

[Harpua19]

"If you are plugging into a really basic system with poor preamps and useless channel EQ, then yes, possibly a standalone preamp wth better EQ might bring some advantages."

THIS! We quickly got everything dialed in, but were definitely at the limitations of our shotty PA. While probably not a necessity, a standalone preamp would be helpful to have in your toolkit. The DBX GORack seems like it's worth look as well - the price is certainly right!

[almeriastrings]

I'd probably look at upgrading your mixer, at the very least in preference to adding a a preamp in front of a poor mixer. Anything is only as good as the weakest link the chain. I don't know how many channels you need overall, but I'd certainly take a long look at the Allen & Heath ZED series.

The new ZEDi's should be avoided, however as they only have two band EQ or three band without mid-sweep. The original ZED's have a minimum of 3 band with swept mid which is really important for EQ with acoustic instruments. The preamps on these are so good no external preamp needed.

The ZED10 upwards are all great sounding little desks with built-in preamps every bit as good as literally anything in the way of external units - until you start looking at those of $500 a channel and upwards.