Shipping Estimate
USA
- USA
- CAN
- USA
- CAN
Ships within 48 hours · Estimated delivery Jul 4 - Jul 9
Promo Codes Available:
For Your Every Summer RSVP, with Code: SUMMER15
Description
5Core Drum Mic Kit 9 Pcs Kick Bass Tom Snare Dynamic Microphone Instrument Mics Set9 Piece Drum Mic Kit Includes 4 snare mics, 2 overhead mics, 2 instrument mics, 1 bass mic, 4 clips & clamps, 2 sponges, and a carrying case. High PerformanceEach mic is designed to capture everything from deep low end punch to sensitive, flat sound with precision. Premium Kick Bass MicLarge diaphragm dynamic microphone optimized for bass drums and low frequency instruments. Easy InstallationStand adapters with built in locks and standard XLR
【9-Piece Drum Mic Kit 】Includes 4 snare mics, 2 overhead mics, 2 instrument mics, 1 bass mic, 4 clips & clamps, 2 sponges, and a carrying case.
【High Performance】Each mic is designed to capture everything from deep low-end punch to sensitive, flat sound with precision.
【Premium Kick Bass Mic】Large diaphragm dynamic microphone optimized for bass drums and low-frequency instruments.
【Easy Installation】Stand adapters with built-in locks and standard XLR connectors ensure a quick and hassle-free setup.
【Wide Application】Ideal for percussive, jazz, and various other instrument recordings in both studio and live settings.
Drum Mic Kit Description
|
The 9 Piece Drum Mic Kit is a comprehensive solution for capturing the full range of your drum set’s sound. The bass drum mic features a moving coil dynamic element with a frequency response of 20Hz-15KHz, ensuring deep low-end punch. The tom/snare drum mics provide accurate sound capture with a 50Hz-12KHz frequency response and uni-directional polar pattern. The overhead mic, with its back electret condenser, captures high-frequency clarity up to 18KHz. The instrument mic ensures crisp, detailed sound with a 70Hz-15KHz response. Perfect for drum sets, drum mic kits, and professional performances, this kit covers all your drum microphone needs.
|
Drum Mic Kit Features
|
HIGH SPL HANDLING |
ROBUST BUILD QUALITY |
TAILORED FREQUENCY |
EASY TO SET UP |
|
Our drum microphones are engineered to handle high Sound Pressure Levels (SPL), ensuring clear and distortion-free audio capture even during the most dynamic performances. |
Built to withstand the rigors of both stage and studio environments, our drum microphones boast a durable construction that ensures longevity and reliable performance. |
Each microphone in this drum mic kit features a frequency response tailored to its specific application, ensuring accurate and natural sound reproduction across your entire drum set. |
The drum mics kit features built-in locks and standard XLR connectors for quick and secure installation. Compatible with most drum sets and mic stands, this drum microphone kit simplifies your setup. |
Drum Mics Kit Details :
Bass Drum Mic Specification :
- Color : Blue
- Element : Moving Coil Dynamic
- Polar Pattern : Uni-Directional
- Frequency Response : 20H2-15KHz
- Sensitivity : -60dB+3dB
- Output Impedance : 500 Ohm+30%
Tom/ Snare Drum Mic Specification :
- Color : Blue
- Element : Moving Coil Dynamic
- Polar Pattern : Uni-Directional
- Frequency Response : 50Hz-12KHz
- Sensitivity : -54dB+3dB
- Output Impedance : 600 Ohm+30%
Overhead Mic Specification :
- Color : Blue
- Element : Back electret condenser
- Polar Pattern : Uni-Directional
- Frequency Response : 50Hz-18KHz
- Sensitivity : -45dB+3dB
- Output Impedance : 250 Ohm+30%(at 1kHz)
- Max. Input SPL : 130dB(at 1kHz=1%T.H.D)
- S/N Ratio : 70dB
- Power Supply : Phantom 48V or 1.5V
Instrument Mic Specification :
- Color : Blue
- Element : Moving Coil Dynamic
- Polar Pattern : Uni-Directional
- Frequency Response : 70Hz-15KHz
- Sensitivity : -53dB+3dB
Package Includes :
- 1x Bass/ Kick Drum Microphone
- 4x Snare/ Toms Drum Microphone
- 2x Overhead Microphone
- 2x Instrument Mic
- 4x Microphone Holder/Clip
- 4x Microphone Clamp
- 2x Mic Sponge
- 1x Carrying Case
Simple Replacement Process
|
Experience an Easy Replacement Policy designed for hassle-free customer satisfaction. If a product is defective, damaged, or not as described, simply contact our support team for a quick replacement process. |
About Brand
|
5 Core, ISO Certified headquartered in California, warehouse in Ohio, USA. Offering 600+ products since 1984. Tested and Certified Products, ensuring highest quality and reliability. |
Here you can find more amazing microphones; alternatively, browse our product page to find the best mic accessories, wireless microphone, mic accessories, mic holder and more.
Shipping Notes
- Free Standard Shipping on $100+ Orders to the USA.
- Except Preorder products are shipped in 48 hours.
- Delivery to the USA:
- Standard Shipping : 3-10 business days
- If time is of the essence, please consider selecting expedited delivery for faster service.
Exchange/Return Notes
- We offer a 30-day return/exchange service after receiving.
- Final sale items are not eligible for returns or exchanges.
- To process your return/exchange, please contact us at [email protected]
- Please click here for more details>>> Return & Exchange Policy
4.8 ★★★★★
Based on 320 reviews
Sort
Product Reviews
★★★★★ 3
Ultimately disappointing .. but still a good read
Format: Hardcover
This book does have a few commendable features. It is written in laymen's language, you don't have to be a constitutional law scholar like David A. Strauss to comprehend the arguments. And it's short. Won't take more than a couple of hours to read. But as a critique of the "originalist" constitutional doctrine, it is hit and miss. For example, Strauss argues that originalism has three major flaws (p.18):
1) the impossibility of determining what the understanding of the founding fathers was on a particular issue.
2) the impossibility of translating an original understanding so that it addresses today's problems.
3) no answer for Thomas Jefferson's question about why we, the living, should be governed by the "dead hand" of past generations, including the founders.
Of these three, the first is the most telling, because it is indeed sometimes the case that we do not know what the founders would have thought about a particular issue, because that issue simply did not exist at the time of the enactment of the constitution or a particular amendment, or because that original meaning could be lost to history. The patent-ability of new life forms as a result of genetic engineering being a good example (but, other technological examples, like cases related to airplanes and cars, are NOT good examples, since while the founders were unaware of these technological advances, it's safe to assume they would recognize them as transportation vehicles, so their understanding of ships and horse carriages would apply to them). That's why i am what Strauss might call a "sometimes originalist" - my view is that IF there is no reasonable doubt about what the enactors of a constitutional provision would have thought about a case, then that should control the decision a court arrives at. But obviously, if the issue was unknown to the enactors, or if their views are forever lost to us due to the passage of time, then there is no "original understanding" of that particular issue, and some other method of constitutional interpretation must be relied on.
The second and third objections are far less compelling to me. The second objection is IMO a non-issue. To ask "well, we know that in 1880 the enactors of the 14th amendment did not believe its equal protection clause outlawed employment discrimination against women, but would they believe that if they were living in the year 2000, with all the economic/cultural/technological changes that have developed over those 120 years?" is an irrelevant question. It's like asking if the 1969 Congress that enacted the Clean Air Act would still enact it if that Congress were to debate the issue in 2010: it's purely speculative and ungermane, since neither statutes nor constitutional provisions have expiration dates on them.
Likewise, the 3rd objection is both shallow and disingenuous. Shallow because Jefferson clearly understood that the constitution, like laws enacted by the legislature, are subject to change by later generations, who can amend the constitution or pass new legislation to supersede what previous generations have accomplished. Disingenuous, because the invocation of Jefferson seems to be a tactical decision by Strauss, a way to tweak originalists by citing one of the very greatest of our founding fathers. Yet Jefferson can also be quoted to support an originalist view. For example, in 1801 he said:
"The Constitution on which our union rests, shall be administered by me according to the safe and honest meaning contemplated by the plain understanding of the people of the United States, at the time of its adoption....These explanations are preserved in the publications of the time, and are too recent in the memories of most men to admit of question." (Writings of Thomas Jefferson, quoted from a letter dated 3/27/1801).
The first part of this quote clearly indicates that Jefferson believed that constitutional provisions should be interpreted according to original understanding, not "modern, evolved" standards of meaning as David Strauss would contend. The second part speaks to the need i identified before, that of knowing within the bounds of reasonable doubt what the enactors understood a provision to mean.
Beyond all this, though, is David Strauss's contention that a "living constitution", as defined by a common-law like accretion of judicial precedent in constitutional matters that leave the original meaning of the text behind, is necessary because otherwise our constitution would become an archaic relic unable to meet the demands of a changing society, and that the formal amendment process is too slow and cumbersome. Professor Strauss correctly notes that Jefferson believed that our institutions must evolve with the development of society; however, he crucially fails to note that to Jefferson, the primary mechanism of such innovation was to be the actions of the legislature. Constitutional provisions are expounded in broad, general language not to enable future judges to interpret them in light of changing societal conditions, but to permit elected bodies, like legislatures and congress, wide latitude to address the problems of today. Legislative bodies, which directly reflect the ebbs and flows of societal change and are accountable to the people, were Jefferson's preferred vehicle of constitutional innovation, not the decisions of insulated, life-tenured court judges. On this point, unlike on many others, Jefferson was in agreement with John Marshall. As Jean Edward Smith (1996) writes "When (in McCulloch v. Maryland) Marshall spoke of the Constitution as "intended for ages to come" and of the need to adapt it "to the various crises of human affairs", he was alluding to the responsibility of Congress, not the Court. And the limits on Congress were defined by the political process, not the judiciary" (p. 445).
Thus, for example, while the enactors of the 14th amendment did not intend for it to ban employment discrimination against women, it also was not intended to prevent Congress or the state legislatures, at the time of the enactment or in the future, from enacting legislation that does protect women from employment discrimination should that type of legislation be deemed necessary or advisable. Jefferson was far more wary of "innovative" actions by judges, exemplified by his belief that "if federal judges have the final word over its meaning,
the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please". Yet it is exactly this type of judicial activism that Strauss means when advocates a "living constitution".
Strauss's fundamental error is revealed on page 103 when he says that "We cannot say that the text of the constitution does not matter ... no (textual) provision of the constitution can be overruled in the way a precedent can, or disregarded the way original understandings often are". What Strauss is saying here (well, he wouldn't put it this way, but this is my view of the matter) is that when a judge wants to be activist, to impose his/her personal policy preferences on a case, it's very important that the judge somehow, through clever verbal gymnastics, no matter how convoluted, "ground" that ruling in some actual constitutional-textual language. This is very important for achieving the political purpose of maintaining respect for the court in the eyes of the public. But to me, Strauss creates a false dichotomy: The text of the constitution is ONE AND THE SAME with its "original understanding". The 'text', the actual words of the constitution, does not exist independent of the original understanding of those words, the text is merely the communicative vessel used to convey that original understanding. That's the way language works. It's a method to convey meaning. Thus, to invoke the Due Process Clause of the 5th amendment to outlaw Federal segregation laws (as the Court did in 1955) when the enactors of the 5th amendment clearly (as Strauss admits) did not intend for it to mean that, is the SAME THING as ignoring the "text" of the constitution, since the text and original understanding are one and the same.
Overall, i recommend this book. One will learn alot about constitutional history, and Professor Strauss is surely correct in that the "living constitution" view is in fact the dominant way in which the Court has gone about its business in practice, regardless of what legal theoreticians have thought.
But, don't expect to be convinced by much Professor Strauss has to say about why this is a good thing.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on May 18, 2010
★★★★★ 5
Originalist v Living Document , 5 - 4
Format: Hardcover
I found the author's arguments to be logical and compelling. Those who embrace the so-called originalist view of the Constitution, for example Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, claim that they know - with great certainty - the absolute intent of the Constitution's authors. Further they claim that the Constitution provides specifics and principles which of course it does. It is simple to understand the specifics, but what about the principles? Principles, it seems to me, can and do have differing interpretations. One of the definitions of the word principle found in Merriam-Webster states, "a moral rule or belief that helps you know what is right and wrong and that influences your actions." As we all know, rules and beliefs frequently mean different things to different people. If it were not so, Supreme Court decisions would inevitably be decided 9 - 0.
Many are familiar with the Supreme Court's case District of Columbia v. Heller in which Justice Scalia opined that the Second Amendment shouldn't stop the U.S. from barring certain weapons. While his opinion certainly seems reasonable to me, I cannot find that principle in the Constitution. Rather it seems to be a logical conclusion based on modern society, mores, and laws - perhaps, as Professor Strauss argues, Common Law.
Whether one accepts the originalist view of the Constitution or, as I, believes a living interpretation of the great document is preferable, the one thing we can all agree on is that our nation is one of laws. To that end, it is incumbent on all citizens to accept and abide by the pronouncements of our judges, agree with them or not.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on November 18, 2014
★★★★★ 5
My Grandchildren LOVED this!
Format: Hardcover
I read this out loud to my two grandchildren ages 4 and 6 at bedtime. They're so excited to be reading a chapter book and they LOVED it! The book's quirky sense of humor is great and it was fun to hear the kids giggle. We loved how the sloth appears in each story. They couldn't wait for the next night to read. Mr Angleberger- please write more!!!
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on October 24, 2017
★★★★★ 5
Got my 8 year old to read!
Format: Hardcover
My eight year old hated reading and refused to pick up any book, until this arrived in the mail. He as usual refused at first to read it but I made him read a couple of pages, which he did and put it down but the next day he asked to read it and read the entire book in 30 mins. He said he loved it and it was really funny. Already have the 2nd book on its way.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on March 15, 2017
★★★★★ 5
This book is adorable, fantastic
Format: Hardcover
This book is adorable, fantastic! I bought it for a 6 year old boy - he loved it - and his 10 year old brother loved it just as much. The three of us read it together and laughed out loud! It is written for a K - 1 - 2 grade level. Just wonderful! Kudos to the writer and illustrator!
We're really looking forward to book #2!
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on November 15, 2016
recommand products
Seagate ST2000VN000 100724095 REV A 1HJ164-500 (7822) PCB for Sale
24.95
Seagate ST2000DM001 100687658 REV C 1CH164-302 (7835) PCB for Sale
29.00
Benet High School Youth Pants Shell
49.95
Western Digital WD20EARS-00MVWB0 2060-771698-002 (7971) PCB for Sale
29.00
Seagate ST8000VN004 100847224 REV C 2M2101-500 (7845) PCB for Sale
24.95