And maybe it helps to show that some of us may overstate the importance of
very expensive or "state of the art" mics. The difference between a good mic
and a better (or different) one may be quite minor, often negligible after
mixing and mastering.
It ain't the brush; it's the artist.
"Uncle Russ" Reinberg
WESTLAKE PUBLISHING COMPANY
www.finescalerr.com
WESTLAKE RECORDS
www.westlakerecords.com
"Mark & Mary Ann Weiss" wrote in message
k.net...
"David Satz" wrote in message
ups.com...
You've given evidence for something that I really wish more people
would realize: if you can put a good enough pair of microphones in a
good place in front of a good performance, you'll very likely get a
good recording. All that the recorder has to do is not ruin it.
I'm not saying that it makes _no_ difference what medium or recorder
you use--but just as you've found, a less-than-ideal choice can
sometimes be a very good choice for a given situation.
So thanks for posting your story. It also shows that an invisible
component (the engineer's good sense) is the most important item of
equipment for any recording.
--best regards
I'm sure there is (obviously) some truth to this, but what I find
disturbing
most in this day and age is that $100K and better studio facilities are
putting out recordings with very audible hiss. Some newer CDs have one
broadband compressor and you can hear it pumping so it sounds like an FM
broadcast, not a CD.
But with the $3000 mics, $100K consoles, $2500 mic preamps and digital I/O
throughout, you would think hiss would be completely banished.
This recording probably sounds good because I happened to set an optimal
recording level, making the best use of the availabe 45dB s/n ratio of the
electret mics (which probably perform a lot better than their spec
quotes).
When I compare these old mics with my modern new large-diaphragm condenser
mics, there is no comparison in hiss levels at all. The difference in
sensitivity alone will account for an improvement just on the mic pre not
having to provide the extra 21dB of gain.
I think that the other factor is that the band didn't utilize an extreme
bandwidth from low to high. All that was needed was flat response from
50hz
to 15kc to convey the music, since there were no bass notes below 50hz and
most people can't hear anything above 15kc anyway, unless they are under
50
years of age. :-)
I am theorizing that the program material didn't expose the weaknesses of
the system.
Had it been an organ that I recorded, I might have noticed a loss of low
bass, for instance.
But the lack of hiss really amazes me. All I hear is the 30 hz vertical
framing noise from the video heads between sets. The venue was VERY
quiet--only a few people at some tables far back from the band and behind
cardioid mics.
I'm going to capture this and put it on a DVD-R so that it is easier to
watch.
--
Take care,
Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
VIDEO PRODUCTION . FILM SCANNING . DVD MASTERING . AUDIO RESTORATION
Hear my Kurzweil Creations at: http://www.dv-clips.com/theater.htm
Business sites at:
www.dv-clips.com
www.mwcomms.com
www.adventuresinanimemusic.com
-