Audix SCX1-HC

Wow, that's interesting. Fortunately I haven't had to mod any of my mics yet, but then again I've mainly bought middle of the road stuff that has already been battle tested by other people for years (Shure, Sennheiser, AKG, etc).

This is one reason I sprang for the Audix as compared to an Oktava or something... I wanted it to Just Work, not have too much wind noise, and actually be manufactured by the real manufacturer. I'm sure they're great if you get the right one and take all the necessary precautions though.
 
Yeah, I don't normally do stuff like that, but I was having a good year, the deal was right and I was curious to see what I could do with the mics.

Regards,

Ty Ford
 
Hello, all. Reviving this old thread because I'm interested in this Audix SCX1-HC as an indoor dialogue boom microphone for feature film. I've read a lot of good reviews and am impressed with the sound clips I've heard so far. I'd love to hear more of your impressions of this supposed "hidden gem" in the microphone world.

I'm also on the lookout for a good shotgun microphone to use for outdoor scenes that will match up well with this Audix indoors. Less expensive is better, of course, but I'm willing to pay a fair price for good quality. In an ideal world I'd be using Schoeps, but those are a bit too rich for my wallet at the moment.

Any suggestions?
 
I use the Audix SCX1-HC and it holds up like a champ. The pickup pattern is perfect for dialog. Slightly off axis pickup is still warm and full. You still have to get it in there to around 19" and you still need a pretty good mount to eliminate handling noise. I keep thinking about upgrading to a Sennheiser MKH 50 but it's hard to justify. Try it out. You'll love it.
 
I just listened to Curtis Judd's YouTube test of the cardioid variants that compared the Audix SCX1-HC with the Audio-Technica AT4053b. I think they are both great sounding mics. Although to my ear, monitoring through Genelec studio monitors with a sub, the Audix, to me, sounds a bit more strident. It's dfficult to explain but I find at least Curtis' voice, which is a pretty typical and average voice with excellent enunciation, to sound more fatiguing to listen to when heard through the Audix. This would indicate that the Audix has more mid-range and is definitely brighter than the Audio-Technica. To my ear, I agree with Curtis conclusion that overall, he liked the Audio-Technica AT4053b best out of the five mics he auditioned. The 4053b seems to be easier to listen to and has a nice, pleasant smoothness, owning to the increased bass response, while still remaining crystal clear on the upper mids to high end frequency. Just an observation, I still think the Audix sounds good, although to my ear, it is not nearly as transparent as the Schoeps CMC641, the sound from the Audix is much more colored. Not sure who crowned it to sound almost the same as the CMC641, I don't think it does at all. But for $500.00, it does sound very good, although I think I will end up spending $100.00 more the buy the 4053b.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-b_1gOYOEQ A/B compare the Audix at 4:20 with the Audio-Technica at 7:00 a few times and you should hear what I am hearing if you have decently accurate monitors. Granted, one speaker, recorded in one environment, it would be interesting to hear the two model microphones A/B'd in several different rooms with both male and female voices. I am still reminded that microphones are the same as golf clubs, no one club is the right one for every shot on the course, the same as no one microphone is "it", you really need at least three or four different models for different results in different situations.
 
I own the Audix, which I bought used from the late UTTR-labs, if anyone here remembers him.

The mic is great, no regrets. I agree with the above comments that there is a slight upper mid boost in the audix, and to my ears the AT sounds a bit scooped in comparison. However, keep in mind that whether these are advantages or disadvantages depends not only on the voice and the room, but also on the context. A more scooped sound will have a harder time cutting through a busier mix with background music, etc.

I don't think you can go wrong with either in that price range. The next quality jump is a serious price jump. I do appreciate the lower self noise of the AT, but I've never had issues with the Audix's already very low self noise.

For reference, I'm listening back on Dynaudio BM6 monitors.
 
ozmorphasis said:
The mic is great, no regrets. I agree with the above comments that there is a slight upper mid boost in the audix, and to my ears the AT sounds a bit scooped in comparison. However, keep in mind that whether these are advantages or disadvantages depends not only on the voice and the room, but also on the context. A more scooped sound will have a harder time cutting through a busier mix with background music, etc.
Click to expand...

Great conclusion, I totally agree. If I was a working sound mixer, I would have a minimum of 8-10 mics between cardioid variants and shotgun variants. I have used mics like the Sennheiser MKH-50, which sounds amazing on certain voices and not so great on others. I find female versus male voices usually favor one mic over another as well as thin voices versus punchy basso profundo leaning voices. I don't think any video-centric recordists who are the majority of the audience in this forum would go wrong with either for the majority of situations. Best, of course, would be to have both because they do sound so different, it's nice to have choices.

Dynaudio are great monitors, probably a better value than Genelecs for most. Genelecs are expensive for what they are but they do sound very neutral and last forever. How long have you used your Dynaudios?
 
puredrifting said:
Great conclusion, I totally agree. If I was a working sound mixer, I would have a minimum of 8-10 mics between cardioid variants and shotgun variants. I have used mics like the Sennheiser MKH-50, which sounds amazing on certain voices and not so great on others. I find female versus male voices usually favor one mic over another as well as thin voices versus punchy basso profundo leaning voices. I don't think any video-centric recordists who are the majority of the audience in this forum would go wrong with either for the majority of situations. Best, of course, would be to have both because they do sound so different, it's nice to have choices.

Dynaudio are great monitors, probably a better value than Genelecs for most. Genelecs are expensive for what they are but they do sound very neutral and last forever. How long have you used your Dynaudios?
Click to expand...

I bought my Dynaudios in 2005. They are the mk1 version, which some claim have better amps than the slightly less expensive mk2's. I never had a chance to compare.

I'm a musician first before getting involved with video, so my ears are pickier (or at least more experienced) than my eyes where it concerns gear. The dynaudios have served me VERY well and have been left on 24hrs/day, 7days/wk for over a decade now and still just killing it.

Genelecs are fantastic too!
 
ozmorphasis said:
I own the Audix, which I bought used from the late UTTR-labs, if anyone here remembers him.

The mic is great, no regrets. I agree with the above comments that there is a slight upper mid boost in the audix, and to my ears the AT sounds a bit scooped in comparison. However, keep in mind that whether these are advantages or disadvantages depends not only on the voice and the room, but also on the context. A more scooped sound will have a harder time cutting through a busier mix with background music, etc.

I don't think you can go wrong with either in that price range. The next quality jump is a serious price jump. I do appreciate the lower self noise of the AT, but I've never had issues with the Audix's already very low self noise.

For reference, I'm listening back on Dynaudio BM6 monitors.
Click to expand...

puredrifting said:
I just listened to Curtis Judd's YouTube test of the cardioid variants that compared the Audix SCX1-HC with the Audio-Technica AT4053b. I think they are both great sounding mics. Although to my ear, monitoring through Genelec studio monitors with a sub, the Audix, to me, sounds a bit more strident. It's dfficult to explain but I find at least Curtis' voice, which is a pretty typical and average voice with excellent enunciation, to sound more fatiguing to listen to when heard through the Audix. This would indicate that the Audix has more mid-range and is definitely brighter than the Audio-Technica. To my ear, I agree with Curtis conclusion that overall, he liked the Audio-Technica AT4053b best out of the five mics he auditioned. The 4053b seems to be easier to listen to and has a nice, pleasant smoothness, owning to the increased bass response, while still remaining crystal clear on the upper mids to high end frequency. Just an observation, I still think the Audix sounds good, although to my ear, it is not nearly as transparent as the Schoeps CMC641, the sound from the Audix is much more colored. Not sure who crowned it to sound almost the same as the CMC641, I don't think it does at all. But for $500.00, it does sound very good, although I think I will end up spending $100.00 more the buy the 4053b.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-b_1gOYOEQ A/B compare the Audix at 4:20 with the Audio-Technica at 7:00 a few times and you should hear what I am hearing if you have decently accurate monitors. Granted, one speaker, recorded in one environment, it would be interesting to hear the two model microphones A/B'd in several different rooms with both male and female voices. I am still reminded that microphones are the same as golf clubs, no one club is the right one for every shot on the course, the same as no one microphone is "it", you really need at least three or four different models for different results in different situations.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the input, guys. If I were to go with the Audio-Technica AT4053b as an indoor dialogue microphone, which shotgun microphone would you use for exterior dialogue scenes that matches the AT4053b sound quality?
 
Jaime Valles said:
Thanks for the input, guys. If I were to go with the Audio-Technica AT4053b as an indoor dialogue microphone, which shotgun microphone would you use for exterior dialogue scenes that matches the AT4053b sound quality?
Click to expand...

A used Audio-Technica AT4073a would be a good match (and I like my AT4073a...don't use it much anymore, but I think it's an under appreciated mic). That particular model has been replaced by the BP4073. I --think-- the main changes concern RoHS compliance, but I haven't used one:
http://www.audio-technica.com/cms/wired_mics/0b59ff21a316da95/index.html
 
Jaime Valles said:
Hello, all. Reviving this old thread because I'm interested in this Audix SCX1-HC as an indoor dialogue boom microphone for feature film. I've read a lot of good reviews and am impressed with the sound clips I've heard so far. I'd love to hear more of your impressions of this supposed "hidden gem" in the microphone world.

I'm also on the lookout for a good shotgun microphone to use for outdoor scenes that will match up well with this Audix indoors. Less expensive is better, of course, but I'm willing to pay a fair price for good quality. In an ideal world I'd be using Schoeps, but those are a bit too rich for my wallet at the moment.

Any suggestions?
Click to expand...

For outdoors check out the Aputure Deity kit.
 
The AT 4073 is a good match.. if you can find one, it was discontinued a few years back. The 4073 also has one of the highest sensitivity specs of all short shortgun mics (70+ mV), but the trade off is a lower max SPL. I've never used the newer BP4073, aside from being RoHS compliant, I recall the sensitivity is a little lower. FYI, the 4053 sensitivity is around 21mV, the Audix is around 17mV. The popular hypers seem to range from 10 to 25mV..
 
Last edited:
Rick R said:
The AT 4073 is a good match.. if you can find one, it was discontinued a few years back. The 4073 also has one of the highest sensitivity specs of all short shortgun mics (70+ mV), but the trade off is a lower max SPL. I've never used the newer BP4073, aside from being RoHS compliant, I recall the sensitivity is a little lower. FYI, the 4053 sensitivity is around 21mV, the Audix is around 17mV. The popular hypers seem to range from 10 to 25mV..
Click to expand...

I never owned one but to my ear, the 4073 sounded good but a bit thin. Kind of weird, you'd think it would share sound characteristics with the 4053b but based upon my tests years ago, the 4073 didn't have the same bass response or smoothness as the 4053b. I personally don't think the 4073 would compliment the 4053b very well, they sound very different. Take a listen to the samples http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage/right_mic_brockett.html
 
Well if you are comparing the AT4073A to the AT4053B, that is apples to oranges.

The 4073A with the HPF engaged is cut off at 150hz, which kind of takes out the bass. But it also takes out a lot of the wind noise and is needed with the high sensitivity. The BP4073B dose not have that high sensitivity, but as I have never used one I do not know exactly how it sounds, but it is supposed to match the AT4053B pretty well.

Having the 4073A I have been keeping an eye out for a 4053A to go with it, but they seem to be about like hen's teeth (hard to find).
 
puredrifting said:
I never owned one but to my ear, the 4073 sounded good but a bit thin. Kind of weird, you'd think it would share sound characteristics with the 4053b but based upon my tests years ago, the 4073 didn't have the same bass response or smoothness as the 4053b. I personally don't think the 4073 would compliment the 4053b very well, they sound very different. Take a listen to the samples http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage/right_mic_brockett.html
Click to expand...

Thanks for that article! Lots of great info there, and the audio files are excellent.

To be honest, after careful listening to all the recordings over multiple days, I think I'm going to bite the bullet and go with the higher end microphones. The difference is pretty clear to me. I'm leaning more to the Sennheiser MKH 50 (interiors) and MKH 60 (exteriors), even though they add up to almost $3000. They sound soooo gooood (on my speakers and headphones at least) and the fact that they're pretty weatherproof helps a lot.
 
Jaime Valles said:
Thanks for that article! Lots of great info there, and the audio files are excellent.

To be honest, after careful listening to all the recordings over multiple days, I think I'm going to bite the bullet and go with the higher end microphones. The difference is pretty clear to me. I'm leaning more to the Sennheiser MKH 50 (interiors) and MKH 60 (exteriors), even though they add up to almost $3000. They sound soooo gooood (on my speakers and headphones at least) and the fact that they're pretty weatherproof helps a lot.
Click to expand...

Glad you found my ancient article helpful, you'll never go wrong owning that pair, Sennheisers are great stuff. I REALLY like the Schoeps CMC641 and the CMIT5u combo, that is what my sound mixer in Brazil used a few weeks ago BUT, he did tell me that he has experienced the familiar old problems with the CMC641 "popping and sputtering" when used in the insane Summer humidity of Brazil. Sound mixers have been telling that for years, that the CMC641 is probably the best sounding cardioid variant on the market but it sometimes struggles in high humidity. I've never heard anything about that issue with the Sennheiser. The Sennheiser pair, to my ears, exhibit a very "exciting" sound that is a tiny bit colored, but it is a very flattering sound that works well for 90% of projects. If you stumble upon that rare voice that just doesn't work well with the MKH-50/60 combo, it would still be good to have another variant like the Sanken CS3e or the Schoeps CMC641 or on the lower end, the Røde NTG3.

These days, I have given up buying expensive high end mics as I will only hire a pro sound mixer for those jobs that warrant such good sound quality and they have the $10k worth of mics ready to go. If they hire me and I have to do sound, they get the competent but cheap sounding Audio-Technica AT875r or the Sennheiser ME64/66 combo. None of these sound great, but they sound okay. My thinking is, if you want pro sound, you hire a sound pro. If you want good enough sound, hire me and foresake the sound mixer (for low end corporate shoots, usually interviews).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top