Garthrr wrote:
In article , "Arny Krueger"
writes:

It's highly likely that this Art MPA Gold is the only mic preamp
that Powell has ever had his hands on in his life.

So, if he has that little experience why is he so convinced he knows
more than people who do this stuff everyday for a living and have
thousands of hours on the gear in question?

He did this all the time on RAO. For years and years.Powell was of the
opinion that he could teach Jim Johnson quite a bit about psychoacoustics.
When that didn't work, he tried to get JJ in trouble with his employer.
Powell is one heck of a nice guy.

Its sad to see him walk into the middle of a gun store and start flailing
with a butter knife.

He was hopelessly outclassed even on RAO. On RAP it's not even funny. Notice
how he's shrugging this all off.

Garthrr wrote:
In article , "Arny Krueger"
writes:

Ironically, I tried to straighten you out about this POS months ago,
but did you listen to me? No!

You mean he had prior warning about this and still stepped in the
poop with both feet and one hand? Talk about not listening...

For sure!

I don't see any potential pledges for the r.a.o. fraternity.

RAO - that's a political talk show, right? News flash Powell, there
is no RAO fraternity any more - just a bunch of political pundits.

I havent looked at that group for a few years actually so earlier
today I popped in for a minute. I think I found one audio-related
thread. After seeing this I think I'm beginning to see why Ty Ford
was so adamant about off-topic posting. My god, RAO is a wasteland.

Quite a phenominon, it seems. I've never seen a NG crash like it has.
Couldn't happen to a nicer group of guys.

Its sad.

It's replacable.

As a group they are delicate wall flowers by comparison .

Powell, you really still don't understand how thoroughly you've
already discredited yourself, right? Comparing a Art MPA Gold to a
Great River, forget your hatchet job on the RNP, has to be the stuff
that Usenet audio legends are made out of. BTW, that's not the good
kind of legend.

I think only a couple times in the past 7 or 8 years have I seen
somebody appear and so thoroughly alienate the regulars in a day or
two.

Forget about the alienation, it's Powell's idiocy that I'm noticing.

Powell, you're about as big of a hoot as the guy over in 4-track who
is so thoroughly MIDI-fied that he couldn't even spell *cardiod*.

BTW Powell, cardiod is a type of microphone. I think that might help
you, given where you are right now.

Ahh... Arny, I dont know if you were kidding but I think its "cardioid".

Whoops! Got a bug in the spell-checker. Thanks. However, the misspelling in
question was far more horrific than a dropped i.

Arny,
After arguing with Powell I was trying to think of another mic pre in the
$500-and-under price range that was comparable to the RNP and I really couldnt.
AFAIK it doesnt have any real competition. At least not for a two chan unit.
Can you think of one?
The Grace 101 is nice but only one chan and its a little more $$$ I think, isnt
it?

But these days you can put a pretty nice stereo signal chain together for less
than $1k!

Garth~


"I think the fact that music can come up a wire is a miracle."
Ed Cherney

In article znr1080409627k@trad, Mike Rivers wrote:
In article writes:
In article znr1080328791k@trad, Mike Rivers wrote:
You might want to look
at Monte McGuire's three-issue mic preamp construction article

I'm pretty sure that was Paul Stamler's article, but I'm certain it
wasn't mine. The design looked good too IIRC...

Yup, you're right. All those Recording authors look the same.

It's the beards that do it.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Sugarite wrote:
Anyone have a good recommendation for a warm, tube, 2-channel mic preamp
for
around four hundred clams?

The only inexpensive tube *circuit* with a healthy plate voltage is in the
DBX silver-face stuff, which is quite well designed, but unfortunately some
jackass executive decided to use cheap parts like aluminum electrolytic
capacitors. I have a DBX 386, which is a dual mic preamp (solid state dual
servo, possibly class A), with tube circuit (2 12AX7's with 200V plates),
and a 24/96 A/D converter based on an AKM 5383 chip, same as in the Digi002.
The preamp section is somewhat trashy on treble, but I've used it just for
its tube circuit before and it achieves the desired effect without
butchering the treble. The A/D is pretty clean too, and has a digital peak
limiter that simulates tape saturation, though I generally avoid it. 386's
generally go for around $300-350 used.

Check out the Bellari. Around $200, and also has a 250V plate. It's not
all tube, though, since there is a (rather poor) IC-based output stage,
and the transformer is sort of doubtful. It sounds like a real tube preamp,
though. Not like a good one, but definitely a huge step up from the
starved-plate crap like the ART.

As I recall, the 386 has a solid-state input stage as well as a solid state
stage after the single tube gain stage. And no transformers. This might be
a good thing considering the price point makes it difficult to do a good
transformer input section.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In article writes:

Anyone have a good recommendation for a warm, tube, 2-channel mic preamp for
around four hundred clams?

I think that if I was recording 400 clams, I'd want more than two
microphones, so a 2-channel mic preamp wouldn't be of much use.




--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article writes:

All that said, a few high-end audio people *have* marketed recording gear
over the years. Manley is a corporate descendant of David Manley's Vacuum
Tube Logic company

(Scott, you can correct me if I got this wrong) he and his wife got a
divorce, and she got the company in the settlement. They still make pro
audio gear, including microphones and preamps, and their preamps are
excellent; I've used them.

Manley Labs (Eveanna's company) still makes high end audiophile gear.
It's on the web site along with the Variable Mu compressors and
Massive Passive EQ. Nice looking stuff, and highly respected in those
circles.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

writes:
Anyone have a good recommendation for a warm, tube,
2-channel mic preamp for around four hundred clams?


"Mike Rivers" wrote ...
I think that if I was recording 400 clams, I'd want more than two
microphones, so a 2-channel mic preamp wouldn't be of much use.

Depends on the acoustics of the venue and how you arrange them.
They're pretty small, after all! :-)

Sometimes when I am out doing a "classic" 2-mic (or stereo point
mic) recording, I imagine Ansel Adams out hiking around with his
big view camera and tripod with a single film plate.

"Kurt Albershardt" wrote

We wouldn’t be having this conversation if the high end
companies I’m most familiar with built mic.
Pre-amps... I would have purchased one from them.

Companies selling high end consumer gear which
make mic preamps?

Offhand--I can think of Manley, FM Acuostics, and EAR.

Manley - yes.

FM Acoustics - no, not according to their web site.

E.A.R. - no, not according to their web site.


I find an niche market in an industry of largely
shoddy products. Why is that?

Why are you calling them shoddy? Have you ever seen
the inside of a Great River preamp?

For every Great River there's several shoddy ones.


If you are thinking reputation, then the players most of
us would consider Major have already been named.
Is George Massenburg major enough for you?

That's a new name for me.
http://www.massenburg.com/cgi-bin/ml/mod8302.html
$2,100.


I don’t know the
answer but would suspect that it’s either profit related
or an uneducated buyer demographic (no money).

It's always profit related if you're in business to make
money. Understand that until recently, consoles (real
consoles, like those used in real studios) had good
quality preamps in them. Massenburg's was the first
standalone preamp I recall using in a studio--maybe
in '85 or '86? John Hardy started running ads not long
after that IIRC.

The whole boutique preamp craze really started in the
mid-90s and there is still precious little original thinking
being done on the matter. You've been pointed at most
of it during this thread.

Thank you.

"Paul Stamler" wrote

We wouldn't be having this conversation if the high end
companies I'm most familiar with built mic.
Pre-amps... I would have purchased one from them.
Instead, I find an niche market in an industry of largely
shoddy products. Why is that? Why don't major
manufactures enter this market. I don't know the
answer but would suspect that it's either profit related
or an uneducated buyer demographic (no money).

You have now asked an interesting question. There is, I think, one primary
reason: pro and semi-pro recording gear is sold to a different market than
home audio gear (including high-end), through different dealers. For a
high-end audio manufacturer to go into the recording market would require
setting up an entirely new dealer network, and these days most home audio
manufaturers have their hands full already. The work and money involved in
diversifying into this new area would be, I think, too much of a risk for
most of them. The ones who are doing well (like Conrad-Johnson, Audio
Research and Krell) are keeping on doing what they're doing, and the ones
who aren't doing well are struggling just to stay afloat.

All that said, a few high-end audio people *have* marketed recording gear
over the years. Manley is a corporate descendant of David Manley's Vacuum
Tube Logic company, an outfit from England. They've been back and forth a
number of times: David M. started out designing studio gear, decided to
apply his skills to designing home gear, and did reasonably well. From
there, he went back to selling recording gear, and did quite well, but
(Scott, you can correct me if I got this wrong) he and his wife got a
divorce, and she got the company in the settlement. They still make pro
audio gear, including microphones and preamps, and their preamps are
excellent; I've used them.

Tim de Paravicini, another high-end audio guy, made some very fancy and
expensive microphones and marketed them; I think he used capsules from the
Swedish Pearl firm, and whopping huge transformers. He also built custom
preamps, but I don't know whether he marketed them or not. He was pretty
much a one-man firm, and I don't think he's doing it any more; his stuff
was
so pricey that his market was quite limited.

Mark Levinson (the person, not the company that now owns the name) has
designed some high-end recording gear, and issued some very good-sounding
recordings. I don't think he markets the equipment any more, though. He
made
a very nice analog tape recorder for a while. He has designed an equalizer
for Cello that, although it was originally intended for high-end home
users,
has found a home in quite a few mastering studios.

Thank you for the insight.

"Scott Dorsey" wrote

They sure do get jumpy over here when you challenge
their notions of fidelity/accuracy. I don’t see any potential
pledges for the r.a.o. fraternity. As a group they are
delicate wall flowers by comparison .

That's because, on the whole, people here tend to
actually listen to equipment.

Quack, quack, quack....


You might be better off back in r.a.o.

I’m sorry Scott, is your personal sand box being
threatened or are you the r.a.p's USEnet cop?

"Arny Krueger" wrote

They sure do get jumpy over here when you challenge
their notions of fidelity/accuracy.

You still don't get what a Art MPA Gold is, do you Powell?

Ironically, I tried to straighten you out about this POS months
ago, but did you listen to me? No!

I have no idea what you’re babbling about.



I don't see any potential pledges for the r.a.o. fraternity.

RAO - that's a political talk show, right? News flash Powell,
there is no RAO fraternity any more - just a bunch of political
pundits.

Yea, there's a lot of political rancor going on.


As a group they are delicate wall flowers by comparison .

Powell, you really still don't understand how thoroughly
you've already discredited yourself, right?

I have no idea what you’re babbling about.

Speaking of shame, how does if feel to be sued in
federal court? That was really classy of you calling
people pedophiles because they disagreed with you.
You are one sick puppy.


Comparing a Art MPA Gold to a Great River, forget your
hatchet job on the RNP, has to be the stuff that Usenet
audio legends are made out of.

Never happened. Did you take your medication today?


BTW Powell, cardiod is a type of microphone. I think
that might help you, given where you are right now.

I have no idea what you’re babbling about.

"Kurt Albershardt" wrote

If you are thinking reputation, then the players most of
us would consider Major have already been named.
Is George Massenburg major enough for you?

Powell writes: That's a new name for me.

Well that explains quite a bit. Are you even in the field of pro audio Powell?

Garth~



"I think the fact that music can come up a wire is a miracle."
Ed Cherney

In article , "Powell"
writes:

You might be better off back in r.a.o.

Im sorry Scott, is your personal sand box being
threatened or are you the r.a.p's USEnet cop?

I think there's a pretty clear consensus that you are an ignorant and obnoxious
nuisance who is contributing nothing to this group.

Garth~


"I think the fact that music can come up a wire is a miracle."
Ed Cherney

"Garthrr" wrote in message
...
In article , "Powell"
writes:

You might be better off back in r.a.o.

I'm sorry Scott, is your personal sand box being
threatened or are you the r.a.p's USEnet cop?

I think there's a pretty clear consensus that you are an ignorant and
obnoxious
nuisance who is contributing nothing to this group.


You know, there are people in this world that have a psychological need to
be told that they are idiots, stupid, ill informed, and worthless as human
beings. We should charge the jerk for the service we are providing. The
duck impression is what tipped me off. It is a rare neurosis, but it is in
the literature. Look it up P.

Steve King

"Garthrr" wrote in message
...

"Kurt Albershardt" wrote

If you are thinking reputation, then the players most of
us would consider Major have already been named.
Is George Massenburg major enough for you?

Powell writes: That's a new name for me.

Well that explains quite a bit. Are you even in the field of pro audio
Powell?


Get a grip, Garthrr! He's in a field of dreams and delusions, not audio.

Steve King

In article , "Steve King"
writes:

You know, there are people in this world that have a psychological need to
be told that they are idiots, stupid, ill informed, and worthless as human
beings. We should charge the jerk for the service we are providing. The
duck impression is what tipped me off. It is a rare neurosis, but it is in
the literature. Look it up P.

Steve King

I was *honestly* wondering what in the world would cause a person to make such
an ass of himself. I can hardly imagine someone doing a better job of it. Its
as though he has some need to be insulted and ridiculed. The need is apparently
being met. Very strange individual. I hope he gets better.

Garth~


"I think the fact that music can come up a wire is a miracle."
Ed Cherney

Paul Stamler wrote:

A couple of folks have built them, by the way, and the ones I've heard from
have liked them. One guy has had oscillation problems, and I'm working with
him now to try and figure out why, and how to fix it.

It's because of where he lives; tell him to move.

--
ha

Paul Stamler wrote:

Mind you, I think Powell is talking nonsense about 90% of the time. But if
he's operating in a real RFI jumgle, that power conditioner may be making a
real difference.

I don't think he's "operatintg" at all. g

Rick Ruskin has a Faraday cage in which he keeps his basement, due to
the amazing amount of hash of all kinds around Seattle.

--
ha

Mike Rivers wrote:

dy writes:

Anyone have a good recommendation for a warm, tube, 2-channel mic
preamp for around four hundred clams?

I think that if I was recording 400 clams, I'd want more than two
microphones, so a 2-channel mic preamp wouldn't be of much use.

What's the best mic for less than ten bucks that will get me that
steamey, buttery sound when recording 400 clams? I'm willing to shell
out for the good stuff and I don't know much about this. Lots of folks
just keep their heads in the sand, but I want to learn from the pros.

Once I get a good take, should I compress and limit it with something
from Waves? Most clam recordings I hear are kind of washed-out sounding.

Thanks for your help, Mike. I know you're experienced because there are
lots of clams around Seattle and you wrote some Mackie manuals. Next
thing you know I'll have to ask you what's wrong with my ol' studer.

--
ha

Steve King wrote:

"Garthrr" wrote...

"Kurt Albershardt" wrote

If you are thinking reputation, then the players most of
us would consider Major have already been named.
Is George Massenburg major enough for you?

Powell writes: That's a new name for me.

Well that explains quite a bit. Are you even in the field of pro audio
Powell?

Get a grip, Garthrr! He's in a field of dreams and delusions, not audio.

He's a gourmet reviewer for _Kitty Litter Weekly_.

--
ha

In article ,
hank alrich wrote:
Unlikely as it seems considering how litle I know technically, I've
figured it out: his power conditioner doesn't pass juice and his amp
noise went down 4 to 7 dB as soon as he hooked it to the conditioner.
Pretty simple, hunh?

!! The only logical conclusion!!

Sometimes, the obvious escapes me... ;-)


Regards,

Monte McGuire

In article ,
Paul Stamler wrote:
Monte, while I think you're right and the troll is wrong, I also have
dramatically lowered noise in preamps by adding various things to the power
supply, the same sorts of things that a power conditioner adds -- serious
RFI filtering. In an extremely high RFI field, it can make a difference.

That's certainly possible, but I think you'd want to do it inside of
the chassis, and not at the end of a power cord to really get it
right. Not that adding some ferrite and shunt capacitance to the
power cord _couldn't_ work, but that it's a better fix to open the box
up and deal with how cables pass in and out of the chassis and whether
RF can travel through the cabling into the circuit.

RFI can certainly be a pain!!


Regards,

Monte McGuire

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
[snip]
You've already vastly exceeded Powell's ability to hold a factual
conversation.

It's highly likely that this Art MPA Gold is the only mic preamp that Powell
has ever had his hands on in his life.

....this has become apparent. I guess it's time to starve the troll.


Regards,

Monte McGuire

One thing to keep in mind about these posts that come up endlessly: recording
used to be basically professional. Professional equipment tends to cost a lot
of money. Heck, even my coffeemaker (used in restaurants) cost over $400.
But, then again, you can run the thing 24 hours a day. Also, you can buy parts
for it and repair it yourself. And the coffee tastes better. Why? I don't
know, but everyone comments on it. When you buy a $30 coffeemaker and it
breaks down in a month of continuous use, does anyone wonder but the stupid?
Now that every 16 year old has his own studio that totals a few thousand
dollars, should it really sound like the studio that has a couple hundred
thousand dollars (or more) worth of equipment? Well, it better not and it
doesn't. I really hope everyone enjoys the equipment they can afford, but it
is wise to be realistic about what is and what isn't real.

Monte P McGuire wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:
[snip]
You've already vastly exceeded Powell's ability to hold a factual
conversation.

It's highly likely that this Art MPA Gold is the only mic preamp that Powell
has ever had his hands on in his life.

...this has become apparent. I guess it's time to starve the troll.

A starved-plate troll! No wonder JJ couldn't work with him; he's all
psycho and no acoustic.

--
ha

"Jim Kollens" wrote in message
...
One thing to keep in mind about these posts that come up endlessly:
recording
used to be basically professional. Professional equipment tends to cost
a lot
of money. Heck, even my coffeemaker (used in restaurants) cost over
$400.
But, then again, you can run the thing 24 hours a day. Also, you can buy
parts
for it and repair it yourself. And the coffee tastes better. Why? I
don't
know, but everyone comments on it. When you buy a $30 coffeemaker and it
breaks down in a month of continuous use, does anyone wonder but the
stupid?
Now that every 16 year old has his own studio that totals a few thousand
dollars, should it really sound like the studio that has a couple hundred
thousand dollars (or more) worth of equipment? Well, it better not and
it
doesn't. I really hope everyone enjoys the equipment they can afford,
but it
is wise to be realistic about what is and what isn't real.

All quite true, but I think sometimes that people who use only high-end,
expensive, vintage gear can tend to overlook the fact that since virtually
every type of technology becomes less expensive as time goes by; it's
currently possible to purchase a new mic pre, for example, that will give
you just as high quality of sound as something costing three times as much
20 years ago. Not necessarily saying it's a "better" sound because that, of
course, will depend on what gear works best for whatever it is you're
recording, or even "the same" sound because obviously, different designs
are going to sound - well DIFFERENT! But think about it, a Grace 101,
for example, at $595 is going to sound way better than anything you
could've bought 20 years ago for the same amount as indexed to inflation
(which would've been, what? About $340?).

Maybe mic pres are not a good example, because I can't think of any
stand-alone preamps from 1984 that weren't custom-racked things and would
have been at a premium price point, just as any custom-racked thingies are
today; but take whatever new item you want & knock about 43% off its
current "street" price point (which equates to roughly a 3% rate of
inflation over 20 years) & you'll see what I mean. Could you buy a
high-quality, well-built LDC then for $285 (relative cost of the BLUE Baby
Bottle as indexed to inflation)? A Tube mic that seems to be generating
some positive buzz for $400 (the RODE K2's price indexed to inflation)? Or
maybe a practical, utilitarian, non-sucky compressor for $90 (FMR's RNC)?

I'm no "champion of the cheap" - most of the gear I currently own is what
I'd classify as being in the midrange to high-midrange realm in terms of
quality & cost - but you have to admit it's amazing what kind of bang for
your buck you can get nowadays in the world of audio.
--

Neil Henderson
Progressive Rock
http://www.saqqararecords.com

Neil Henderson: I think sometimes that people who use only high-end,
expensive, vintage gear can tend to overlook the fact that since virtually
every type of technology becomes less expensive as time goes by;

You really can get a lot for your money and things are possible now that were
impossible when I was young. What I mean is that if I wanted to record back
when I was 20 years old, it meant my old Webcor and a cheap dynamic microphone.
Later I had some Akai (?) sound-on-sound thing and I really thought I was hot
****. I couldn't afford anything that even approached "professional." But
back to current times, I'm continually amazed at things I hear people make on
all-in-one units with microphones I'd never consider owning. But nonetheless,
there is ****ty gear, alright gear, good gear, great gear and godly gear. Back
in the 60's, there was professional gear and consumer gear and not a lot in
between. The "in-between" can become confusing, especially when some
manufacturers make questionable products based on odd notions and aim their
sales as kids (or adults too) that don't know any better.

Powell wrote:

"Kurt Albershardt" wrote


We wouldn’t be having this conversation if the high end
companies I’m most familiar with built mic.
Pre-amps... I would have purchased one from them.

Companies selling high end consumer gear which
make mic preamps?

Offhand--I can think of Manley, FM Acuostics, and EAR.


Manley - yes.

FM Acoustics - no, not according to their web site.

Don't ask me why, but you have to get a login and password to even look at their pro audio products. The product is called Class Amp.



E.A.R. - no, not according to their web site.

http://www.ear-yoshino.com/productdetails.asp?id=27

Garthrr wrote:
Arny,

After arguing with Powell I was trying to think of another mic pre in
the $500-and-under price range that was comparable to the RNP and I
really couldnt.

If you haven't noticed, I don't say a lot about the sound quality of mic
preamps and consoles. I have about a half dozen of them, but I really
haven't figured out why I would prefer most of them over the others. Lessee.
Mackie SR32, Rane DMS 22, SMPro PR8, Behr MXB 1002, Symmetrix SX202, Rolls
MP13. Other than the '202, nothing to write home about. One or two for sure
bozo buys. If I did it all over again...

BTW I don't think you had an argument with Powell. You engaged in a battle
of wits with an unarmed man.

;-)

AFAIK it doesn't have any real competition. At least not for a two chan
unit. Can you think of one?

A RNP would be an upgrade compared to anything I have.

The Grace 101 is nice but only one chan and its a little more $$$ I
think, isnt it?

About $75 more than a RNP but mono not stereo.

Again, do you want to explain in 100 words why everybody should buy one, and
not the other?

But these days you can put a pretty nice stereo signal chain together
for less than $1k!

Well now we get to where the rubber hits the road. People made great
recordings with stuff that we probably wouldn't use to record a dog fight
these days.

Garthrr wrote:

Its sad to see him walk into the middle of a gun store
and start flailing with a butter knife.

And to realize he could actually _hurt_ himself with it, just 'cause
it's sharper than he is.

--
ha

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Garthrr wrote:
Arny,

After arguing with Powell I was trying to think of another mic pre in
the $500-and-under price range that was comparable to the RNP and I
really couldnt.

If you haven't noticed, I don't say a lot about the sound quality of mic
preamps and consoles. I have about a half dozen of them, but I really
haven't figured out why I would prefer most of them over the others.
Lessee.
Mackie SR32, Rane DMS 22, SMPro PR8, Behr MXB 1002, Symmetrix SX202, Rolls
MP13. Other than the '202, nothing to write home about. One or two for
sure
bozo buys. If I did it all over again...

BTW I don't think you had an argument with Powell. You engaged in a battle
of wits with an unarmed man.

;-)

AFAIK it doesn't have any real competition. At least not for a two chan
unit. Can you think of one?

A RNP would be an upgrade compared to anything I have.

The Grace 101 is nice but only one chan and its a little more $$$ I
think, isnt it?

About $75 more than a RNP but mono not stereo.

Again, do you want to explain in 100 words why everybody should buy one,
and
not the other?

But these days you can put a pretty nice stereo signal chain together
for less than $1k!

Well now we get to where the rubber hits the road. People made great
recordings with stuff that we probably wouldn't use to record a dog fight
these days.

But the nature of what was available (in the early 60s) was easier to work
on and could potentially be made to sound very very good. In my first
studio job, while Malcolm Chisholm was putting together a 16 x 8 desk based
on Langevin 5116s (have I got that number right), I got the job of
rebuilding an old Gates radio console for Studio B. Recapped it. Replaced
input transformers with UTC LS series. Added a bus and switching for
stereo. Added a cue bus and reverb sends and returns. It was still as big
as a steamer trunk and had fewer capabilities than a Mackie 1202, but it
sounded fine and turned out several top ten R&B records.

However, I do agree with the other posters who have rightly pointed out that
one gets a much bigger bang for the buck nowadays on most professional
equipment. Not true for everything. According to the 3% inflation
scenario, which seems a little low to me, a U47 would be under $2k today.

Steve King

Steve King

In article writes:

Sometimes when I am out doing a "classic" 2-mic (or stereo point
mic) recording, I imagine Ansel Adams out hiking around with his
big view camera and tripod with a single film plate.

Right, and here we have people looking for something they can put in a
pocket to record in the great outdoors.

Something I remember from an interview with Ansel Adams is that he was
talking about how he worked differently from so many hobbyist
photographers. He said that when he focused his camera, he turned the
knob until it was in focus and that was that. It was done. The typical
hobbyist will rock the focus in and out and in and out and never
really be sure he has it right. Kind of reminds me of searching for
the best piece of a recording chain.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article writes:

What's the best mic for less than ten bucks that will get me that
steamey, buttery sound when recording 400 clams? I'm willing to shell
out for the good stuff

Groan!

I recorded a guitarist once who played about 400 clams in a single
take. Man, was I steamed! I was thinking about handing him a razor.

I'll have to ask you what's wrong with my ol' studer.

Oh, no! Put a little hot sauce on it and see if it perks up.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Mike Rivers wrote:

In article writes:


What's the best mic for less than ten bucks that will get me that
steamey, buttery sound when recording 400 clams? I'm willing to shell
out for the good stuff


I recorded a guitarist once who played about 400 clams in a single
take. Man, was I steamed! I was thinking about handing him a razor.

Razor clams?

Powell wrote:
"Kurt Albershardt" wrote

We wouldn’t be having this conversation if the high end
companies I’m most familiar with built mic.
Pre-amps... I would have purchased one from them.

Companies selling high end consumer gear which
make mic preamps?

Offhand--I can think of Manley, FM Acuostics, and EAR.

Manley - yes.

FM Acoustics - no, not according to their web site.

They used to at least. Gabe Weiner posted a review of it here a decade ago.
I've never used one myself.

E.A.R. - no, not according to their web site.

Yes, but theirs are pretty much one-off jobs. I have used their preamp and
tape deck and the preamp is quite clean.

Don't forget Dick Sequerra either!
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In article , (Monte P McGuire)
writes:

I guess it's time to starve the troll.

I think you're right.

Garth~


"I think the fact that music can come up a wire is a miracle."
Ed Cherney

hank alrich wrote:
What's the best mic for less than ten bucks that will get me that
steamey, buttery sound when recording 400 clams? I'm willing to shell
out for the good stuff and I don't know much about this. Lots of folks
just keep their heads in the sand, but I want to learn from the pros.

I've recorded clams for years.

Also, I have recorded a band called Clam Chowder.

Once I get a good take, should I compress and limit it with something
from Waves? Most clam recordings I hear are kind of washed-out sounding.

Anything but. Most of the clams and honkers I hear are anything but
washed-out. Just this afternoon, the orchestra gave two or three really
good ones during their first run-through of the Haydn Creation.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

(hank alrich) wrote in message ...
Mike Rivers wrote:

dy writes:

Anyone have a good recommendation for a warm, tube, 2-channel mic
preamp for around four hundred clams?

I'm gonna stick my neck out here...but couldn't you just put a Sytek
in the microwave to warm it without relying on tubes? Now, if the
clams are doing a castinette thing, well, that could be a game
changer.

Tom "I'm really Tom Paul" Paul

In a fishy-smelling thread, (hank alrich) wrote:

Mike Rivers wrote:

dy writes:

Anyone have a good recommendation for a warm, tube, 2-channel mic
preamp for around four hundred clams?

I think that if I was recording 400 clams, I'd want more than two
microphones, so a 2-channel mic preamp wouldn't be of much use.

What's the best mic for less than ten bucks that will get me that
steamey, buttery sound when recording 400 clams? I'm willing to shell
out for the good stuff and I don't know much about this. Lots of folks
just keep their heads in the sand, but I want to learn from the pros.

Once I get a good take, should I compress and limit it with something
from Waves? Most clam recordings I hear are kind of washed-out sounding.

Don't think that everything that comes from clams is bad. I got
this old Janis Joplin LP, it's a pearl.

Thanks for your help, Mike. I know you're experienced because there are
lots of clams around Seattle and you wrote some Mackie manuals. Next
thing you know I'll have to ask you what's wrong with my ol' studer.

-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley