MXL 2001

I'm an amateur home recording, hobbyist recording to PC and listening on KRK RP6 speakers.

Large Diaphragm Condenser mic. Claims to be cardioid but takes a lot of rear sound in, so sort of subcardioid/hypercardioid.

Don't listen to the other reviews on this site. I bought this mic based on the 9/10 score it averaged, but ask anyone on any tech forum and theyll tell you how bad this mic is.

Has a decent, soft sound with a rich low end but the balance is all out of whack. Way too much high end. It claims to be designed for vocals and acoustic guitar. Vocals sound OK but are very harsh and need a lot of EQ to become useable. Guitars always sound very airy and hollow, unmusical and scratchy.

Best used for fattening or mellowing out anything that doesn't have a lot of HF information. Sounds really fat and musical for lead lines of any sort, be it clean or distorted, electric guitar or synth. Gives a thick, rich sound on a lot of percussion instruments too (not cymbals).
A lot of people say these sound good on toms and bass cabs which confirms my own opinions about this mic.

There's 2 well known mods for this mic, a tube mod (the basis for the MA200 mic) which apparently turns it into a really cool character mic and a FET mod which makes it sound like a more conventional, less harsh LDC. These mod kits aren't sold anymore anyway, so there's not much point in buying a 2001 for that purpose.

Note: Not to be confused with the MXL 2001A which appears to be the old MXL 2003 (which was generally considered to be a much better mic than the 2001) with a different nametag.

I wouldn't recommend this mic. I certainly use it for one or two very specific applications and other more experienced techies do too but it certainly isn't suitable for the Vocals/Guitar applications that it advertises. If you see it cheap and want to have a go at modding a mic or just want to expand your roster of amp and drum mics then consider it but otherwise don't bother.

The mic is very solidly built.

I've been recording for over 40 years, worked with a few stars (Keith Richards, Eric Clapton, Chuck Berry, Robert Cray) and have used a variety of equipment ranging from cheap to expensive. Currently I use Macintosh computers and three ProTools systems for producing music. Mackie HR824 monitors, Bose 802 PA, Fostex T-20 headphones, custom built mixing console.

I bought my first MXL 2001 mic because it was so cheap and my bro at GC told me he had recently A/B compared it to a U87 and found the 2001 to be better on the particular session (I thought "yea sure buddy"). GC was selling these mics for $99 (I got the first one for $80). It's a large diaphragm, unidirectional condenser mic (requires 48 volt phantom power).

When I first fired it up and started messing with it I could hardly believe how good it sounded (not just for a cheap mic, ANY MIC!). I still like my Rode tube mic better on my husky growling vocals but the 2001 is not bad (it's too pure sounding for my coarse voice).

The 2001 makes an SM57 sound broken when compared side by side to mic'g my Fender, THD, Marshall and Boogie guitar amps (I had to try a couple of SM57 because the difference was so shocking I thought the first 57 was broken). I've got a lot of different speaker cabs and the 2001 has a nice silky fatness plus glistening highs.

A few months ago GC had MXL 2001 mics on sale for $69. I couldn't hardly believe it so I bought 3 more of them. They make fantastic mics for drums (scared to try it on Kick drum tho). Snare drums crack very nicely, toms are natural and big sounding without off axis grossness.

This mic has decent proximity effect but not so much that instruments get mushy or lost in boom. My friend Bob bought a couple based on my recommendation. He thinks the 2001 is very bright (depends on what you're mic'g). He was also very impressed with his $138 stereo pair of MXL 2001 microphones (it's an unbelievable price).

Side by side with my 414 AKGs (early 90's models, flat response, smooth even response, not hyped in the highs) the MXL 2001 sounds like it has more highend sting but not in a bad way. I prefer'd the MXl 2001 on my vocal to the 414.

The 2001 has a transformer output. So many of the cheap China mics have active balanced outputs. You might not have a problem in your little home studio but wait until you get on some 150 foot mic cables in a live venue - active balanced mic outputs sometimes go "Aaaannnnggrrraaahhggrrindd". I've used my MXLs to record in a number of bars that are known for RF hum inducing problems and the 2001 came through like the professional it truely is. They'll probably quit making this model and come out with a replacement without a transformer output - I'll be sad but that's the way the industry is, "cheap" - I can almost hear the engineers now "look, we can remove this $2 part and replace it with this 5-cent part, keep the price the same and make more profit".

Out of the four 2001 mics I bought they all sound very similar and consistent - no duds. You need to isolate the mic well because it's very sensitive in the bass region. Not excessive in handling noise compared to other pro large diaphragms - they all need attention to mounting isolation.

Stuff out your mic kit with a few of these and you'll be making some great recordings for an incredible low low price. Definitely one of the best bargains in Pro Audio today.

I have 15 yrs of experience as a musician and 11 yrs of experience recording in both a home studio and in producing at pro and project studios. My usual signal route is MXL-2001 into a Mackie 1202VLZ or into a Presonus Blue Tube. Occasinally I'll have a FMR RNC (Real Nice Compressor) on the insert of the mixer or inline after the Presonus. These are running into a PC equipped with a Delta 44 soundcard and being recorded on Cool Edit Pro.
Monitoring setup consists of a pair of Alesis Monitor One nearfields powered by an Alesis RA-100 reference amp in a room configured as a live room/dead room with half the room sound treated.

Overall I have had pretty much all good experiences with this microphone. Early on there were some consistency issues in their production, but I was priveledged enough to correspond with one of the engineers at Marshall Electronics and really got a sense that quality control and happy customers were priority #1 for them. The kind of customer service I got from Marshall was what I would expect from a company if I had bought a 2K+ microphone from them. An example is when they matched up some MXL-603S small diaphragm condenser mics at no charge when I bought a couple and one was having some noise problems. They replaced the defective one and then sent back a matched pair. I can't ask for better service then that.

Ok but you guys want to know about the sound... well in short, even though the MXL-2001 is one of the cheapest condenser mics in my small but well equipped mic cabinet, I must say that it is one of my favorite mics. For some reason on acoustic instruments I get this lovely smooth sound on drums, acoustic guitar, wooden flutes, pan pipes, ocarinas, ect... that I just can't get on my other condenser mics (large and small). My other mics sometimes may offer some advantages such as better high end response or more detail, but to me there is more to sound then simple clarity or tons of high end... Clarity is a good thing.... and this mic is plenty clear. I would also not call it a muddy mic by any means. However it has a certain silkyness to it that I really enjoy that is not always apparent when I simply solo the mic. Interestingly enough on some mics like my MXL V-67G when I solo instruments and vocals the V-67G sounds smoother. But in a mix recorded entirely with the MXL-2001, instruments just seem to sit better in the mix and have an overall smoother and slicker sound.
Of coarse all of this just talk. Nothing explains what I'm talking about better then listening to a sample with your own ears.
On the link below is a sample of a song I wrote (my first attempt at Andean style folk music so ignore my poor ocarina playing please). All of the instruments were recorded using the MXL-2001 with no eq on any instrument except for the bohdran (frame drum) which was pitch shifted and eq'ed a bit. The only other processing was a nice reverb (I forget what I used but probably a Waves reverb plugin) that I put across the whole mix in order to make the recording sound as if it was all recorded in the same acoustic space. The instruments were a 12 string acoustic guitar, a small wooden peruvian flute, a Bear Claws ceramic ocarina, a Bohdran, and a goat skin tamborine.
Later on, I recorded a similar song with a SM-57 dynamic mic and a Sennheiser MD-421 dynamic mic and while I got punchier sounds, I never captured the nice smooth depth of this recording. I'll probably eventually try something like this again with the V-67G mic, but I tend to use the V-67G more as a mic to get more vocal presence. I use my Rode NT-1 condenser mic for much the same purpose although I do prefer the V-67G and CAD E-200 on acoustic guitar.
The bottom line is that every mic has its own character and this mic certainly has plenty of it. It is not a muddy, smeary, nasty mic that some critics in other websites have labeled it as. It is, as you will hear in that sample below, a very respectable sounding budget microphone that is very versatile. I even have a friend that uses one of these as his kick drum mic and he gets some amazingly fat kick drum tracks with it. So, without further adoo here is a mp3 sample (it sounds even better in the original .wav) of what this mic can do in a typical home studio:

http://www.garageband.com/mp3/WIGON-Fire_Heart.mp3?|pe1|S8LTM0LdsaSnZVazY24

Chris G.

30+ years performing and writing music. record music projects to PC
have various ancient and recent equipment, whatever works is cool.
have used Neumann U47 TUBE etc for studio work in the past
lately have been using Sennhieser MD409 and other passive mics beyerdynamic m300 etc, and the old faithful shure type stuff
got a mxl 2001 recently plus a sonus pretube preamp on sale for $149
plugged the thing in and NO NOISE WHATSOEVER... fantastic! If you have dodgy wiring this combo will probably work for you. sound is dead, ie transparent, but throw whatever you want onto this thing and it comes up sweet.
the gain through the presonus box is awesome, may need to back it down a little, but so far so good.

8 plus considering the price

Been producing in hip-hop since 1999 and playing guitar since 1990.
I've been recording for a little more than a year with a basic PC
set-up, however for the money I've actually invested into my studio I can't complain about the results. I am a big fan of behringer therefore I use Behringer HPM 1000's as my primary listening unit.

I've owned my MXL 2001 (condenser mic) for about 6 months and is used mainly for vocals with some acoustic guitar use. It's running through a Behringer UB802 that is simply connected to the mic input on my Pc and I record with Magix Music studio and Cubase. I absolutely love this product and had no idea how much of a difference a good mic can make until I bought one. (Had to re-record all my vocal tracks after the upgrade) I'm sure there are better mics on the market but for a budget studio you can't beat the quality. I can almost guarantee that you will not be dissapointed after investing in this product especially if your new to home recording and on a budget. The key to this and all mics I'm sure is expirimentation. Placing it in different locations in your sound booth will produce different sounds so have fun in learning and don't be afraid to take different approaches to your recording. Granted I still have a lot to learn myself, I am extremely pleased with this mic and feel my mony was very well spent. One thing I do recommend however, is to use this mic with a popper stopper for vocals as it is, at least in my opinion, very sensitive and picks up even the slightest noise clearly.

Work in the ent. bus. out here in los angeles. Exp. in composing/music supervision for tv/cable/& film. Rec. artist as of late. Using the MXL 2001 & 603s in home studio. through pre-sonus tube pre, comp 16, and eq3B/ Alesis mxr. into Roland dig.rec. (use this set-up @ home for fleshing out ideas onto disc.)

2001 is large diaghpragm cond. mic. in shock mount, through prev. mentioned set up. mostly for vocal use. sound is clear and w/ very very close reproduction of the original (source)sound. slight emphasis on high-end, but ends up adding a little 'sweetness' to the overall vocal as a result. does great job of keeping voc. trk. 'out in front' of the mix.
603s is small diaghpram cond. mic w/o shock mount. sound is also extremely clear, and reproduces amazingly close to the source sound. use mainly for acoustic gtr. and open-room miking. both mics are sensitive, but as a result they work VERY well.
No problems w/ either as of yet. Their construction seems solid, and they have a 'hefty' feel to them, which usually is a good indication of quality product.
Got a FANTASTIC deal, $160.00 for both, so, no complaints there. Makes them great for projects you wouldn't dare use more expensive condenser mics for. If ever broken or stolen, they are inexpensive enough for me to pop over to local music store here in Santa Monica to replace.
I highly reccomend them both.