Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
On 12/10/2010 9:25 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
Sure. Even I, who po po's the $9000 mike don't care if someone who has more money than he knows what to do with buys one. That's capiralism. There are prople who wouldn't drive anywhere except in their Bentley, either. I can only speak for myself. Everyone should understand that. If you have money to burn, then you can afford to buy some very nice things. I think you're speaking of a hobbyist here. Now I don't own any $9,000 mics, but when I started looking for paying clients (back when not everyone who owned a guitar had a recording studio in his spare room) I found that I got more business than the other TASCAM studios in town because I had AKG and Neumann mics and they had pawn shop Shure and EV PA mics. I don't think that those mics necessarily made my recordings sound any better (though they probably did) but it did make the clients feel like they were working with someone more competent than a guy with a band PA system and a recorder. So, in a way, the good mics paid for themselves. And 40 years later, I still have, and use those mics, and by today's standards, they're still good mics. So, it's not a matter of having more money than you know what to do with, it's a matter of knowing where to put your money to be most effective in business. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
#42
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
Neil Gould wrote:
Bill Graham wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , "Bill Graham" wrote: I think that, like guitars, you don't gain much above $500. Man, do I disagree with that (the guitar part). Well, perhaps you should learn something about double blind tests. I know enough about double blind testing to tell you that you are misapplying the concept in this case. This is where someone who plays the guitar very well, but hasn't been informed what the test is all about, plays both instruments from behind a curtin, and you try to tell which one is the $5000 guitar, Is that a behind relative of Jane Curtin? ;-) If not, how does one play a guitar behind a curtain? The quality of a guitar is less about how it looks than how it feels, how it responds to the player, and the tonal result, which is significantly affected by the player. To one with little experience, the subtleties between, e.g. a $500 Yamaha and a $5,000 Martin may not be appreciated. To those with a lot of experience, the differences are obvious. Whether the differences are "worth it" or not is a personal matter. and which one is the $500 model. In this case, he can play the same guitar into the $500 mike, and again into the $9000 mike, and if a signiuficant number of audiophiles can tell which is which, then at least, I will know there is some difference. Whether that difference is worth $8500 is yet another story. I think you're missing some important factors, Bill. For example, consider trying to make two mics that have exactly the same audio characteristics. Microphone mechanics and production methods will insure that the number of components that get scrapped will far outnumber those that are usable for those two mics. Also, the cost of manufactured products is affected by production volume. It will cost a lot more to make 100 units a year of a particular product than 10,000. Put jsut those two factors together, and it is not hard to imagine that the cost of the mic will be astronomical. If you are trying to match two units at the manufacturing stage, then I will agree with you. But the way this is usually done is at the final test stage. There a mike is picked at random, and then the others are tested to find one with the same characteristics within some margin of error to be determined by the variance and audible detectability. This is a far cheaper way to get matched units. |
#43
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
On 12/10/2010 10:30 PM, hank alrich wrote:
timewarp2008 wrote: On Dec 10, 9:25 pm, "Bill Graham" wrote: Perhaps the recording engineer for the Rolling Stones would buy a half dozen $9000 mikes, just so at cocktail parties he (and the rest of the Stones) could mention that their mikes "cost us $9000 each". IOW, it is a status thing. They would kick me out of their party when I asked, "And how do they differ from the nine hundred dollar ones?" You could yell at them to get off your lawn. ! I've always said that I would LOVE to hear George Massenburg do a session with all SM57s, a Mackie 1402VLZ into a computer with Adobe Audition, and an Alesis 3630 compressor (or effects box, if you will) in a bedroom studio. If anyone here knows George and if he is bored... |
#44
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Bill Graham" wrote in message mcp6453 wrote: How do the new Telefunken mics, such as the U47 with a VF14k, compare with their originals? Are the Telefunken recreations any better than the knock offs, like Wunder, Peluso, and a host of others? The new U47 is $9000. The obvious question is, is it 100 times better than the $90 microphones on the market? It doesn't have to be. At this price level, most would agree that diminishing returns may have set in. Ah....If only that were true. That is what I have been trying to say, but "most" haven't agreed at all. Most have just told me that I am a, "Stupid xxx" for making, or even suggesting that such a thing is possible. |
#45
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote: Better design, better materials, better fabrication, better assembly, better QC. If you've been paying attention, you know that the $90 mics are usually clones or derivatives of some really pretty good mic from the past. Unfortunately there ARE some companies whose $900 microphones have the same capsules and same QC and basic built quality as their $90 microphones. Traditional old-line companies were engineering-driven. They designed a good product, then they would take what they learned and use it to make lower cost products with some cost-cutting done. Currently there are a lot of companies that are basically all using the same capsule designs, mostly adapted from some of the products of those old-line companies but often by people who didn't understand how they worked. These folks are very successful on the bottom end of the market, and they are using the technology they made cheap microphones with to make expensive microphones. BUT, they still don't have actual engineering skills and they don't know what makes a good product. So... you CAN get your money's worth when you buy an expensive microphone, but these days you don't NECESSARILY get it. I have reviewed some really dreadful $5000 microphones in the last few years. --scott Yes. When I made my original assertions, I was assuming that the companies who produced these things were basically honest, and not intentionally scamming the public. Of course, with so many manufacturers out there, and many from China or other countries, there must be a bunch of scamming going on. But in a sense, there has always been this sort of thing happening. There are a percentage of the buying public that judges items by their price, and will naturally assume that a $9000 mike is 100 times as good as a $90 one. And, if these people are spending their own money, then they deserve everything they get. Unfortunately, sometimes they are spending the taxpayers money. (That means yours and mine, buddy) |
#46
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
hank alrich wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote: "Bill Graham" wrote in message mcp6453 wrote: How do the new Telefunken mics, such as the U47 with a VF14k, compare with their originals? Are the Telefunken recreations any better than the knock offs, like Wunder, Peluso, and a host of others? The new U47 is $9000. The obvious question is, is it 100 times better than the $90 microphones on the market? It doesn't have to be. At this price level, most would agree that diminishing returns may have set in. And, how do you build a $9000 microphone that costs 100 times as much as the ones you can build for $90? Better design, better materials, better fabrication, better assembly, better QC. If you've been paying attention, you know that the $90 mics are usually clones or derivatives of some really pretty good mic from the past. If you look carefully at the spec sheets you often find that the more expensive mics have helpful refinements like better off-axis response and lower residual noise. You know that there are a virtually unlimited number of responses versus acceptance angle that can all be called "cardioid", right? If you use cheap mics you know that they may be more prone to failure under tough conditions of humidity, temperature, and shock. The assembly tolerances are sometimes so variable that people have made a business out of buying the same parts and assembling them more carefully, using better-trained staff. Are the profit margins higher? Probably. At this point just about everybody, no matter what their preferences are has done a gig with a cheap mic and it came out pretty well, all things considered. Doesn't mean that it might have sounded better with a better tool. Are you sure you aren't buying jewlery? For $9k I do expect a nearly jewel-like appearance. But I've just pointed out all the ways that there could be more than a pretty face to behold and benefit from. Like what you buy when you buy a $9000 watch? It won't keep time 100 times better than the $90 watch, but it will be encrusted with diamonds and rubies. I think you can pay $9 large for a watch with no precious or semi-precious stones on it at all. Will the performers sing better when using it? In a sighted evaluation, perhaps. You hand them the mic, you tell them not to drop it because it cost $9k. That might improve their attitude a bit! ;-) I am not a pro audio guy. But my common sense tells me to be very suspicious of any microphone that costs more than about $500. I think you've set the bar too low. I routinely use a half dozen or so mics that list for $488 each, most of which have another $100 or so worth of options attached. Those are $588 microphones, right? If a cheapskate like me is using stuff like that, where is the bar to be set? Much higher, it seems. I've done a fair amount of work with borrowed mics that list for about $2k each. Almost cried when I sent them back. In some sense they are equivalent to mics that sell for $49.95 but let me tell you about the ways that they are different... I think that, like guitars, you don't gain much above $500. You stuck your foot in it now! The musos I work with are not so much about expensive guitars but there is definately some far bigger money on the table when we start talking about their brass and woodwind instruments. Also true of the various permuations of violins, both large and small. $500 is chump change when it comes to professional grade musical instruments of just about any kind. Arny, kudos, man; that is a beautiful response. Yes, I agree that my dollars come from twenty or thirty years ago, rather than from a visit to the musical instrument store yesterday. Perhaps I should have used $2000 instead of $500, but the basic principal is still there. And that is, beware of just trying to achieve quality by pouring money into something. There is a cost-benefit curve that everyone should be operating on. Back in the 60's the USA spent like 40 or 50 Billion dollars to do something manned that could have been done by robots for 10% as much money. But they didn't care, because it was taxpayers money. |
#47
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message Currently there are a lot of companies that are basically all using the same capsule designs, mostly adapted from some of the products of those old-line companies but often by people who didn't understand how they worked. These folks are very successful on the bottom end of the market, and they are using the technology they made cheap microphones with to make expensive microphones. BUT, they still don't have actual engineering skills and they don't know what makes a good product. So... you CAN get your money's worth when you buy an expensive microphone, but these days you don't NECESSARILY get it. I have reviewed some really dreadful $5000 microphones in the last few years. --scott IOW, you may get what you pay for if you spend the big bucks, but only if you spend them carefully. I wonder about people whose very first pair of mics cost more than $500, let alone $5,000. I have to say that in my opinion, the two devices that amaze me the most in audio are microphones and speakers. All the rest is pretty much conventional and predictable. |
#48
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
On 12/10/2010 10:30 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
But, at 75, I too have a few tidbits of knowlege that I have picked up over the years, and I have a right to voice them here. I don't know about your knowledge. You haven't expressed any about microphones here. But you've certainly had plenty of time to form your own opinions and biases, and you certainly have a right to voice them here. The fact that some people don't agree with you doesn't mean that you need to continue arguing the point. We get it. We know you don't see the point in spending more money than you can hear. Nobody is trying to change your opinion. That's yours to keep. But you're not likely to change anyone else's opinion to yours without some facts to back you up. So far you've only said what you think. By the way, I drive a Lexus. I could have practically the same car as a Camry, but the Lexus has more insulation and is quieter inside, which means that I don't need to turn the radio up so loud when I'm driving on the highway, and I get fatigued less. The dealership has good coffee, too. The coffee isn't worth the $3,000 difference, but the quieter ride is - to me. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
#49
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
Doug McDonald wrote:
$500 is chump change when it comes to professional grade musical instruments of just about any kind. Really. I got a viola when I was in high school in 1960. It cost $250. Now consider inflation. That was an absolute bottom of the line pro-grade instrument back then. Suitable for back-desk provincial symphony orchestra or in a band supporting a provincial "Broadway musical" ensemble (where in fact I played it professionally). Now again consider inflation. I practically fainted when I found out how much the school district payed for the bassoon I played in band! (payed in 1948). Doug McDonald I know retired pro trumpet players who are still blowing the horns they got in High School. And, this is part of the reason why I posted the controversial post I made about microphones and musical instruments. These guys spent their carears playing "student grade" horns, and they still do, and they sound just as good as they ever did. |
#50
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
timewarp2008 wrote:
On Dec 10, 2:06 am, "Bill Graham" wrote: timewarp2008 wrote: On Dec 9, 8:49 pm, "Bill Graham" wrote: I am not a pro audio guy. +1 Ah! Proof by status. "Logic doesn't matter in this case, your honor. My client has a better education than the opposition. Therefore he must be correct." Wow! A mere two non-alphabetic characters, implying agreement with you, and you come up with that extraordinary fantasy. You must have a very fertile imagination. I think I can guess what kind of bovine fertilizer is involved. Thanks for the laugh. BTW, I think it's possible to get a top-quality professional instrument for under $500. If you play blues harp or pennywhistle. But you must have incredibly low standards for guitars. Thanks again for the comedy. It made my day! Glad to be of service. At 75, I resent the suggestion that all my knowlege is worthless because I don't have a PhD in "microphones" or whatever. I certainly don't mind if someone disagrees with me, but I really do insist that they address the facts, and not their perceived notions of my knowlege and experience. (About which they know nothing) I would be convinced if you were to tell me that you worked in a microphone factory and yada, yada, yada. But when you suggest that because I'm not a professional audio engineer, I don't know anything, well, that doesn't convince me of anything except your stupidity. I spent most of my working life in a high energy physics lab, working with people who had a PhD in physics. Occasionally, I told them some things that they didn't know. If I couldn't have done that, they would have fired me. That's what I was there for. For a while, my boss was a Nobel Prize winner. He said to me one day, "If I wanted to know how to sweep the floor, I would consult with the janitor." I thought that was a very profound thing for him to say. |
#51
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
|
#52
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
Jenn wrote:
In article , "Bill Graham" wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , "Bill Graham" wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , "Bill Graham" wrote: I think that, like guitars, you don't gain much above $500. Man, do I disagree with that (the guitar part). Well, perhaps you should learn something about double blind tests. I know something about double blind tests. This is where someone who plays the guitar very well, but hasn't been informed what the test is all about, plays both instruments from behind a curtin, and you try to tell which one is the $5000 guitar, and which one is the $500 model. I'll take that test any day of the week. You play very nicely. And your guitar looks beautiful. And guitars are much more difficult to make than are trumpets, so perhaps I should draw the line with them at say, $1000 instead of $500. But basically, what I said about the placebo effect still stands. There is a tremendous influence over one's psyche due to the looks and finish of the instrument, and it tends to overcome ones perception of what one hears. There is no way to resolve this argument here, but at 75, I have seen a lot of people who were influenced by this effect in some rather amazing ways, so it is not to be taken lightly. There are, for example, companies who make their living cooling horns down to the temperature of liquid nitrogen for a couple of hours and then letting them come back to room temperature in order to "Improve their sound". As one who learned about metallurgy many years ago, I can tell you that this can't possibly change their sound at all, and yet there are many horn players who swear by this effect. Yes, my guitars look great. I just took delivery of a new custom made Baranik, a beautiful instrument. And it is expensive. But I would want it just as much if the finish was all banged up and it was painted orange. The SOUND is what is most important to me, by a long shot. And yes of course, good acoustic guitars are far harder to build than a fine brass instrument. My excellent pro model trombone goes less than half of what I just paid for the guitar. I love the sound of the classical guitar. It was my first instrument (not counting some early piano lessons) But I have psoriasis, and one of the effects of the disease is it wrecks your fingernails. They become soft and crumbly. So, after a few years of trying different things to help me toughin my nails, I took up my second favorite instrument, the trumpet. Today, I play in three bands, and since I am retired, I don't have to make any money, so its all fun for me. |
#53
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
Mike Rivers wrote:
On 12/10/2010 9:25 PM, Bill Graham wrote: Sure. Even I, who po po's the $9000 mike don't care if someone who has more money than he knows what to do with buys one. That's capiralism. There are prople who wouldn't drive anywhere except in their Bentley, either. I can only speak for myself. Everyone should understand that. If you have money to burn, then you can afford to buy some very nice things. I think you're speaking of a hobbyist here. Now I don't own any $9,000 mics, but when I started looking for paying clients (back when not everyone who owned a guitar had a recording studio in his spare room) I found that I got more business than the other TASCAM studios in town because I had AKG and Neumann mics and they had pawn shop Shure and EV PA mics. I don't think that those mics necessarily made my recordings sound any better (though they probably did) but it did make the clients feel like they were working with someone more competent than a guy with a band PA system and a recorder. So, in a way, the good mics paid for themselves. And 40 years later, I still have, and use those mics, and by today's standards, they're still good mics. So, it's not a matter of having more money than you know what to do with, it's a matter of knowing where to put your money to be most effective in business. I absolutely agree with that. If you are a pro, and your clients want you to have $9000 mikes, then by all means you should buy them. I will beat you to the store and hold the door open for you...:^) I have never made my living at that business, but I have dealt with the public, so I can imagine doing such a thing. No, I was talking about myself and using the mikes for the things I use them for. Miking myself, and my friends playing the music we like to play for senior dances and the like. And, I was also talking about the quality of the recorded and live sound you would get by spending that extra $8500. |
#54
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
hank alrich wrote:
timewarp2008 wrote: On Dec 10, 9:25 pm, "Bill Graham" wrote: Perhaps the recording engineer for the Rolling Stones would buy a half dozen $9000 mikes, just so at cocktail parties he (and the rest of the Stones) could mention that their mikes "cost us $9000 each". IOW, it is a status thing. They would kick me out of their party when I asked, "And how do they differ from the nine hundred dollar ones?" You could yell at them to get off your lawn. ! I think my "bedroom community" geezer neighbors would take care of that..... |
#55
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
Mike Rivers wrote:
On 12/10/2010 10:30 PM, Bill Graham wrote: But, at 75, I too have a few tidbits of knowlege that I have picked up over the years, and I have a right to voice them here. I don't know about your knowledge. You haven't expressed any about microphones here. But you've certainly had plenty of time to form your own opinions and biases, and you certainly have a right to voice them here. The fact that some people don't agree with you doesn't mean that you need to continue arguing the point. We get it. We know you don't see the point in spending more money than you can hear. Nobody is trying to change your opinion. That's yours to keep. But you're not likely to change anyone else's opinion to yours without some facts to back you up. So far you've only said what you think. By the way, I drive a Lexus. I could have practically the same car as a Camry, but the Lexus has more insulation and is quieter inside, which means that I don't need to turn the radio up so loud when I'm driving on the highway, and I get fatigued less. The dealership has good coffee, too. The coffee isn't worth the $3,000 difference, but the quieter ride is - to me. Yes. But we aren't talking about a $3000 difference here. We are talking about a factor of 100! Try paying 5 million dollars for your lexus, and you will be in the same ball park as that $9000 mike. You can buy a lot of quiet for 5 million. I think I would buy a pair of headphones. |
#56
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
On Dec 10, 10:07*pm, "Bill Graham" wrote:
Yes, I agree that my dollars come from twenty or thirty years ago, rather than from a visit to the musical instrument store yesterday. Perhaps I should have used $2000 instead of $500, but the basic principal is still there. And that is, beware of just trying to achieve quality by pouring money into something. There is a cost-benefit curve that everyone should be operating on. Now you're talking an entirely different story. Speaking as a guitarist who just got back from playing a gig, there is a distinct threshold below which guitars aren't suitable for real professional use -- not if the guitar will be a significant part of the sound instead of just a background ching-a-ching. Cheap guitars (in which category I'd place all the $500 guitars I've played) don't have the richness of tone, nor the variety of sound textures, nor the subtlety, of a grown-up guitar. As a working guitarist, I'd place that threshold at about $1,500, the price of a good, basic Martin, Taylor or Larrivee. More expensive guitars sometimes sound a little better, sometimes a little worse -- and my better might be Hank's worse. Since I used to teach in a guitar store I got to play almost everything that came in the door -- and have stuck with the beat-out Martin I bought in 1982. A few guitars made some sounds nicer than mine, but not a one made *as many* good sounds as the one I use. And the law of diminishing returns definitely applies -- a lot of the really expensive guitars cost what they do because of inlays, etc. which don't really affect the sound. BUT there's still that threshold, and I repeat my assertion that yer $500 guitar simply won't do what a professional needs, whereas (some) $1500 and up guitars will. (A lot of the difference is solid wood vs. laminate, by the way.) Oh, and Bill, one more thing: if your Martin doesn't sound any better than it did when you bought it, and you bought it new, then you haven't been taking care of it right, or you got a dud (Martin did make some duds in the 70s). Good guitars improve a huge amount in the first year after they're built, and continue improving (more slowly) for several years after that, if well cared-for. Peace, Paul |
#57
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
Bill Graham wrote:
Neil Gould wrote: Bill Graham wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , "Bill Graham" wrote: I think that, like guitars, you don't gain much above $500. Man, do I disagree with that (the guitar part). Well, perhaps you should learn something about double blind tests. I know enough about double blind testing to tell you that you are misapplying the concept in this case. This is where someone who plays the guitar very well, but hasn't been informed what the test is all about, plays both instruments from behind a curtin, and you try to tell which one is the $5000 guitar, Is that a behind relative of Jane Curtin? ;-) If not, how does one play a guitar behind a curtain? The quality of a guitar is less about how it looks than how it feels, how it responds to the player, and the tonal result, which is significantly affected by the player. To one with little experience, the subtleties between, e.g. a $500 Yamaha and a $5,000 Martin may not be appreciated. To those with a lot of experience, the differences are obvious. Whether the differences are "worth it" or not is a personal matter. and which one is the $500 model. In this case, he can play the same guitar into the $500 mike, and again into the $9000 mike, and if a signiuficant number of audiophiles can tell which is which, then at least, I will know there is some difference. Whether that difference is worth $8500 is yet another story. I think you're missing some important factors, Bill. For example, consider trying to make two mics that have exactly the same audio characteristics. Microphone mechanics and production methods will insure that the number of components that get scrapped will far outnumber those that are usable for those two mics. Also, the cost of manufactured products is affected by production volume. It will cost a lot more to make 100 units a year of a particular product than 10,000. Put jsut those two factors together, and it is not hard to imagine that the cost of the mic will be astronomical. If you are trying to match two units at the manufacturing stage, then I will agree with you. But the way this is usually done is at the final test stage. There a mike is picked at random, and then the others are tested to find one with the same characteristics within some margin of error to be determined by the variance and audible detectability. This is a far cheaper way to get matched units. Your method is how manufacturing of cheap products is done. However, for high-quality when a product has interactive components, a more efficient approach is to match the individual components first, and then select the assembled products that most closely match. I suspect you can understand the reason for this. -- Neil |
#58
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 02:13:59 -0500, Bill Graham wrote
(in article ): Jenn wrote: In article , "Bill Graham" wrote: I think that, like guitars, you don't gain much above $500. Man, do I disagree with that (the guitar part). Well, perhaps you should learn something about double blind tests. This is where someone who plays the guitar very well, but hasn't been informed what the test is all about, plays both instruments from behind a curtin, and you try to tell which one is the $5000 guitar, and which one is the $500 model. In this case, he can play the same guitar into the $500 mike, and again into the $9000 mike, and if a signiuficant number of audiophiles can tell which is which, then at least, I will know there is some difference. Whether that difference is worth $8500 is yet another story. Sort of depends on who's doing the doing the choosing. Regards, Ty Ford --Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA |
#59
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
On 12/10/2010 10:49 PM, mcp6453 wrote:
I've always said that I would LOVE to hear George Massenburg do a session with all SM57s, a Mackie 1402VLZ into a computer with Adobe Audition, and an Alesis 3630 compressor (or effects box, if you will) in a bedroom studio. If anyone here knows George and if he is bored... I don't know if GM ever did that, but it's been done before (leaving out the Alesis 3630) and it sounds pretty good. But what I've never heard is that setup but with well chosen medium- to high-grade mics along side the SM57s going into well matched preamps. That would be an interesting experiment. Ask who would pay a dollar for an MP3 file of the SM57 recording. Then ask who would pay $400 for an MP3 file of the recording with the better mics. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
#60
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
Bill Graham wrote:
hank alrich wrote: Bill Graham wrote: hank alrich wrote: Bill Graham wrote: mcp6453 wrote: How do the new Telefunken mics, such as the U47 with a VF14k, compare with their originals? Are the Telefunken recreations any better than the knock offs, like Wunder, Peluso, and a host of others? The new U47 is $9000. The obvious question is, is it 100 times better than the $90 microphones on the market? And, how do you build a $9000 microphone that costs 100 times as much as the ones you can build for $90? Are you sure you aren't buying jewlery? Like what you buy when you buy a $9000 watch? It won't keep time 100 times better than the $90 watch, but it will be encrusted with diamonds and rubies. Will the performers sing better when using it? Read your next sentence and tell me what the hell you think you're doing offering adivice about mics in this forum? I am not a pro audio guy. That's for sure. But my common sense tells me to be very suspicious of any microphone that costs more than about $500. Common sense tells me you know nothing at all about mics above five hundred bucks. I think that, like guitars, you don't gain much above $500. And now I got a trumpet player telling me how much I shouldn't have spent on my guitar. Listen, Bill, you have NO idea what's out there in the way of good guitars. I mean _no idea at all_. (I hope you didn't spend more than a hundred bucks on your trumpet.) What is the best mic you have ever used? Be honest here. When you have subjected your $9000 mike to the double blind test that I described in the above post, then I will give your "pro" status some credibility, but at 75 I have seen a hell of a lot of placebo effects and had them illustrated to me enough times that my nose is sore. Argument by bull****. Your nose is sore becuase you keep sticking your head up your ass. Answer the question: "What is the best mic you have ever used? Be honest here." Its significant to me that the French picked their wines as the best in the world for years until the Japanese came along with a double blind test that showed that California wines were just as good, if not better. When neither the judges nor the proctors know what the test is all about, then its "double blind". And these tests have taught the world a hell of a lot in my experience. Oh, I wouldn't spend more that $500 for a mike for regular stage performances that I use them for. If you are doing something really unusual, like miking hummingbirds in a gale, well, that's different. But $9000? Give me a break! I repeat, you do not know **** about mics, and you know less about guitars. Engineer yourself some humility if you can find the raw materials. If you cannot do that you are the troll others have tagged. And who are you? Why should I give you the right to tell me what I know about Mikes, Horns, or guitars? How many miles have you walked in my shoes? If you disagree with anything I say, then refute it. But try to avoid words like "ass", and "bull****" and try to stick to the facts. Have you ever taken part in a double blind test? Can you tell the difference between a $500 microphone and a $9000 one? And, if you can't, what business do you have spending the other $8500? Would you be spending someone else's money? These are all questions I can't answer about you, because I don't know you. Unlike you, who seems to know everything about me. Or, at least, you are quite willing to talk like you know everything about me. Answer the question: "What is the best mic you have ever used? Be honest here." You're giving advice about mics. What have you used? -- shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/ http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShai...withDougHarman |
#61
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
Bill Graham wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote: "Bill Graham" wrote in message mcp6453 wrote: How do the new Telefunken mics, such as the U47 with a VF14k, compare with their originals? Are the Telefunken recreations any better than the knock offs, like Wunder, Peluso, and a host of others? The new U47 is $9000. The obvious question is, is it 100 times better than the $90 microphones on the market? It doesn't have to be. At this price level, most would agree that diminishing returns may have set in. Ah....If only that were true. That is what I have been trying to say, but "most" haven't agreed at all. Most have just told me that I am a, "Stupid xxx" for making, or even suggesting that such a thing is possible. No, what I am saying is that you don't know squat about mics above five hundred bucks, but you want to talk as if your opinion should carry weight about sucdh mics. You thereby violate the sacred common sense you so casually invoke in error. -- shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/ http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShai...withDougHarman |
#62
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
Bill Graham writes: snip So, it's not a matter of having more money than you know what to do with, it's a matter of knowing where to put your money to be most effective in business. I absolutely agree with that. If you are a pro, and your clients want you to have $9000 mikes, then by all means you should buy them. I will beat you to the store and hold the door open for you...:^) I have never made my living at that business, but I have dealt with the public, so I can imagine doing such a thing. No, I was talking about myself and using the mikes for the things I use them for. Miking myself, and my friends playing the music we like to play for senior dances and the like. And, I was also talking about the quality of the recorded and live sound you would get by spending that extra $8500. Right, which means that for those who come here to listen to professionals discuss this stuff the opinions of an amateur playing for a room full of geezers doesn't have as much weight as those pros, but you post as if your opinions are those that should matter. Iow you make far too much noise for who you are and your qualifications here. I've seen where those high end microphones got the clients in the door, although they were tried for a certain production element, and another cheaper microphone chosen. But, the client booked the job because of those high end microphones. But, as MR. DOrsey commented, he's reviewed enough $5k microphones the last few years which were clunkers. sO, instead of weighing in on a subject you're not qualified to speak on, lurk and learn. By doing so, maybe you'll keep some newbie from asking another elementary question because the information he seeks is still on his news server instead of being scrolled off by a bunch of noise. Richard webb, replace anything before at with elspider ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com |
#63
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
In article ,
"Bill Graham" wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , "Bill Graham" wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , "Bill Graham" wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , "Bill Graham" wrote: I think that, like guitars, you don't gain much above $500. Man, do I disagree with that (the guitar part). Well, perhaps you should learn something about double blind tests. I know something about double blind tests. This is where someone who plays the guitar very well, but hasn't been informed what the test is all about, plays both instruments from behind a curtin, and you try to tell which one is the $5000 guitar, and which one is the $500 model. I'll take that test any day of the week. You play very nicely. And your guitar looks beautiful. And guitars are much more difficult to make than are trumpets, so perhaps I should draw the line with them at say, $1000 instead of $500. But basically, what I said about the placebo effect still stands. There is a tremendous influence over one's psyche due to the looks and finish of the instrument, and it tends to overcome ones perception of what one hears. There is no way to resolve this argument here, but at 75, I have seen a lot of people who were influenced by this effect in some rather amazing ways, so it is not to be taken lightly. There are, for example, companies who make their living cooling horns down to the temperature of liquid nitrogen for a couple of hours and then letting them come back to room temperature in order to "Improve their sound". As one who learned about metallurgy many years ago, I can tell you that this can't possibly change their sound at all, and yet there are many horn players who swear by this effect. Yes, my guitars look great. I just took delivery of a new custom made Baranik, a beautiful instrument. And it is expensive. But I would want it just as much if the finish was all banged up and it was painted orange. The SOUND is what is most important to me, by a long shot. And yes of course, good acoustic guitars are far harder to build than a fine brass instrument. My excellent pro model trombone goes less than half of what I just paid for the guitar. I love the sound of the classical guitar. It was my first instrument (not counting some early piano lessons) But I have psoriasis, and one of the effects of the disease is it wrecks your fingernails. They become soft and crumbly. So, after a few years of trying different things to help me toughin my nails, I took up my second favorite instrument, the trumpet. Today, I play in three bands, and since I am retired, I don't have to make any money, so its all fun for me. Cool. Keep playing! -- www.jennifermartinmusic.com |
#64
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
Bill Graham wrote:
Yes. When I made my original assertions, I was assuming that the companies who produced these things were basically honest, and not intentionally scamming the public. The vast majority of the companies making crappy but expensive microphones ARE basically honest. They just aren't competent. I have talked for years with the owner of a Chinese joint-venture company which sells a $4,000 microphone that is basically their $100 microphone with a lot of crap added to it. He thinks he's making a good product because of all the crap added to it. He doesn't have any idea what makes a good microphone or how good microphones are made; he's a businessman who looks at what is selling in the market and tries to make products that are like them, but with more features. Unfortunately, the way to make a good microphone is by removing features, not adding them. Of course, with so many manufacturers out there, and many from China or other countries, there must be a bunch of scamming going on. But in a sense, there has always been this sort of thing happening. Most of them are not scams. Most of them are people who honestly think they are making a good product, and many of the people buying them honestly think they are getting a good product. Unfortunately there are a lot of people entering the pro audio world today who have not had the opportunity to come through the studio system and so don't really know what the standards out there are really like. And a lot of these companies don't expect to sell more than a few of their flagship product microphones; they are often just there to help draw attention to their cheaper products. Everybody wants to be able to say "We have a $5000 microphone in our catalogue" and it's much easier to make a $5000 microphone than to make a microphone worth $5000. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#65
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
PStamler wrote:
On Dec 10, 10:07 pm, "Bill Graham" wrote: Yes, I agree that my dollars come from twenty or thirty years ago, rather than from a visit to the musical instrument store yesterday. Perhaps I should have used $2000 instead of $500, but the basic principal is still there. And that is, beware of just trying to achieve quality by pouring money into something. There is a cost-benefit curve that everyone should be operating on. Now you're talking an entirely different story. Speaking as a guitarist who just got back from playing a gig, there is a distinct threshold below which guitars aren't suitable for real professional use -- not if the guitar will be a significant part of the sound instead of just a background ching-a-ching. Cheap guitars (in which category I'd place all the $500 guitars I've played) don't have the richness of tone, nor the variety of sound textures, nor the subtlety, of a grown-up guitar. As a working guitarist, I'd place that threshold at about $1,500, the price of a good, basic Martin, Taylor or Larrivee. More expensive guitars sometimes sound a little better, sometimes a little worse -- and my better might be Hank's worse. Since I used to teach in a guitar store I got to play almost everything that came in the door -- and have stuck with the beat-out Martin I bought in 1982. A few guitars made some sounds nicer than mine, but not a one made *as many* good sounds as the one I use. And the law of diminishing returns definitely applies -- a lot of the really expensive guitars cost what they do because of inlays, etc. which don't really affect the sound. BUT there's still that threshold, and I repeat my assertion that yer $500 guitar simply won't do what a professional needs, whereas (some) $1500 and up guitars will. (A lot of the difference is solid wood vs. laminate, by the way.) Oh, and Bill, one more thing: if your Martin doesn't sound any better than it did when you bought it, and you bought it new, then you haven't been taking care of it right, or you got a dud (Martin did make some duds in the 70s). Good guitars improve a huge amount in the first year after they're built, and continue improving (more slowly) for several years after that, if well cared-for. Peace, Paul I agree, and, for the record, I will amend my $500 to $1500. My Martin is a 0018C, which was not their "top of the line" classical when it was built. That was the 00028C. It does still sound very nice, but a real professional classical player wouldn't mess with Martins anyway. He/she would go to spain where there are classical guitars made in the mountains between Spain and France that cost many thousands of dollars. Some of them are hand made by people who only make one or two a year. My ear is not good enough to tell the difference between my Martin and any of these beauties. Perhaps thirty years of playing my horns has done that...:^) |
#66
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
Neil Gould wrote:
Bill Graham wrote: Neil Gould wrote: Bill Graham wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , "Bill Graham" wrote: I think that, like guitars, you don't gain much above $500. Man, do I disagree with that (the guitar part). Well, perhaps you should learn something about double blind tests. I know enough about double blind testing to tell you that you are misapplying the concept in this case. This is where someone who plays the guitar very well, but hasn't been informed what the test is all about, plays both instruments from behind a curtin, and you try to tell which one is the $5000 guitar, Is that a behind relative of Jane Curtin? ;-) If not, how does one play a guitar behind a curtain? The quality of a guitar is less about how it looks than how it feels, how it responds to the player, and the tonal result, which is significantly affected by the player. To one with little experience, the subtleties between, e.g. a $500 Yamaha and a $5,000 Martin may not be appreciated. To those with a lot of experience, the differences are obvious. Whether the differences are "worth it" or not is a personal matter. and which one is the $500 model. In this case, he can play the same guitar into the $500 mike, and again into the $9000 mike, and if a signiuficant number of audiophiles can tell which is which, then at least, I will know there is some difference. Whether that difference is worth $8500 is yet another story. I think you're missing some important factors, Bill. For example, consider trying to make two mics that have exactly the same audio characteristics. Microphone mechanics and production methods will insure that the number of components that get scrapped will far outnumber those that are usable for those two mics. Also, the cost of manufactured products is affected by production volume. It will cost a lot more to make 100 units a year of a particular product than 10,000. Put jsut those two factors together, and it is not hard to imagine that the cost of the mic will be astronomical. If you are trying to match two units at the manufacturing stage, then I will agree with you. But the way this is usually done is at the final test stage. There a mike is picked at random, and then the others are tested to find one with the same characteristics within some margin of error to be determined by the variance and audible detectability. This is a far cheaper way to get matched units. Your method is how manufacturing of cheap products is done. However, for high-quality when a product has interactive components, a more efficient approach is to match the individual components first, and then select the assembled products that most closely match. I suspect you can understand the reason for this. Yes. And, of course, there is no reason why both methods can't be combined. First, you try to build a batch as similar as possible, then you hand pick two or more with the most exact matching characteristics. Of course, a lot depends on the complexity of the item you are trying to match. It could be something very complex, or it could be a batch of pool balls. I am not aware of the complexity of microphones. Are there more than one moving part inside one of those puppies? |
#67
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
hank alrich wrote:
Bill Graham wrote: hank alrich wrote: Bill Graham wrote: hank alrich wrote: Bill Graham wrote: mcp6453 wrote: How do the new Telefunken mics, such as the U47 with a VF14k, compare with their originals? Are the Telefunken recreations any better than the knock offs, like Wunder, Peluso, and a host of others? The new U47 is $9000. The obvious question is, is it 100 times better than the $90 microphones on the market? And, how do you build a $9000 microphone that costs 100 times as much as the ones you can build for $90? Are you sure you aren't buying jewlery? Like what you buy when you buy a $9000 watch? It won't keep time 100 times better than the $90 watch, but it will be encrusted with diamonds and rubies. Will the performers sing better when using it? Read your next sentence and tell me what the hell you think you're doing offering adivice about mics in this forum? I am not a pro audio guy. That's for sure. But my common sense tells me to be very suspicious of any microphone that costs more than about $500. Common sense tells me you know nothing at all about mics above five hundred bucks. I think that, like guitars, you don't gain much above $500. And now I got a trumpet player telling me how much I shouldn't have spent on my guitar. Listen, Bill, you have NO idea what's out there in the way of good guitars. I mean _no idea at all_. (I hope you didn't spend more than a hundred bucks on your trumpet.) What is the best mic you have ever used? Be honest here. When you have subjected your $9000 mike to the double blind test that I described in the above post, then I will give your "pro" status some credibility, but at 75 I have seen a hell of a lot of placebo effects and had them illustrated to me enough times that my nose is sore. Argument by bull****. Your nose is sore becuase you keep sticking your head up your ass. Answer the question: "What is the best mic you have ever used? Be honest here." Its significant to me that the French picked their wines as the best in the world for years until the Japanese came along with a double blind test that showed that California wines were just as good, if not better. When neither the judges nor the proctors know what the test is all about, then its "double blind". And these tests have taught the world a hell of a lot in my experience. Oh, I wouldn't spend more that $500 for a mike for regular stage performances that I use them for. If you are doing something really unusual, like miking hummingbirds in a gale, well, that's different. But $9000? Give me a break! I repeat, you do not know **** about mics, and you know less about guitars. Engineer yourself some humility if you can find the raw materials. If you cannot do that you are the troll others have tagged. And who are you? Why should I give you the right to tell me what I know about Mikes, Horns, or guitars? How many miles have you walked in my shoes? If you disagree with anything I say, then refute it. But try to avoid words like "ass", and "bull****" and try to stick to the facts. Have you ever taken part in a double blind test? Can you tell the difference between a $500 microphone and a $9000 one? And, if you can't, what business do you have spending the other $8500? Would you be spending someone else's money? These are all questions I can't answer about you, because I don't know you. Unlike you, who seems to know everything about me. Or, at least, you are quite willing to talk like you know everything about me. Answer the question: "What is the best mic you have ever used? Be honest here." You're giving advice about mics. What have you used? I don't believe I have ever used a mike thqt cost more than $500, and even then, I had the thought, far in the back of my mind, that I could have gotten the same value for less money. The mike I use most often right now is my Audio Technica PRO 35 R, which is an instrument condenser that clips on the edge of my horn and looks down its throat. I like it because in is reliable, has good output, a broad frequency response (too broad, actually) cannot be overdriven by my horn at its loudest, and only costs about $125. It is also small enough so that it doesn't interfere noticeably with the straight, unmiked sound that eminates from the horn. It just picks it up so that it can be digitized, screwed with, amplified, and added to the natural sound. With the added interest that doing such a thing can give. (It sounds like I've got two or three other horn players standing next to me.) |
#68
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
hank alrich wrote:
Bill Graham wrote: Arny Krueger wrote: "Bill Graham" wrote in message mcp6453 wrote: How do the new Telefunken mics, such as the U47 with a VF14k, compare with their originals? Are the Telefunken recreations any better than the knock offs, like Wunder, Peluso, and a host of others? The new U47 is $9000. The obvious question is, is it 100 times better than the $90 microphones on the market? It doesn't have to be. At this price level, most would agree that diminishing returns may have set in. Ah....If only that were true. That is what I have been trying to say, but "most" haven't agreed at all. Most have just told me that I am a, "Stupid xxx" for making, or even suggesting that such a thing is possible. No, what I am saying is that you don't know squat about mics above five hundred bucks, but you want to talk as if your opinion should carry weight about sucdh mics. You thereby violate the sacred common sense you so casually invoke in error. That's true, but I do that in order to learn something that I otherwise wouldn't know. You see, there is a method in my madness. I would really like to find someone who has worked with $9000 mikes, and can tell me the difference between them and those of considerably lessor price. And, it would be a big bonus if that person could get inside the mike, explain to me just what the difference is, and why it cost 9 big ones to get it. But, I am still waiting for someone to tell me that he passed the double blind test and could tell the 9 grand model from the 1 grand model. Do they put bells and whistles on mikes like they do on cassett tape machines? You know, things like phase reversing switches, different levels of phantom power, bass cut off switches and the like? |
#69
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
|
#70
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Bill Graham wrote: Yes. When I made my original assertions, I was assuming that the companies who produced these things were basically honest, and not intentionally scamming the public. The vast majority of the companies making crappy but expensive microphones ARE basically honest. They just aren't competent. I have talked for years with the owner of a Chinese joint-venture company which sells a $4,000 microphone that is basically their $100 microphone with a lot of crap added to it. He thinks he's making a good product because of all the crap added to it. He doesn't have any idea what makes a good microphone or how good microphones are made; he's a businessman who looks at what is selling in the market and tries to make products that are like them, but with more features. Unfortunately, the way to make a good microphone is by removing features, not adding them. Of course, with so many manufacturers out there, and many from China or other countries, there must be a bunch of scamming going on. But in a sense, there has always been this sort of thing happening. Most of them are not scams. Most of them are people who honestly think they are making a good product, and many of the people buying them honestly think they are getting a good product. Unfortunately there are a lot of people entering the pro audio world today who have not had the opportunity to come through the studio system and so don't really know what the standards out there are really like. And a lot of these companies don't expect to sell more than a few of their flagship product microphones; they are often just there to help draw attention to their cheaper products. Everybody wants to be able to say "We have a $5000 microphone in our catalogue" and it's much easier to make a $5000 microphone than to make a microphone worth $5000. --scott I am very heartened by your stsatement that "the way to make good microphones is by removing features." I will go a stem further and say, "The way to make good anything is by removing feaqtures." I came across this many years ago when trying to buy a good quality cassette tape deck. I can still remember the look on the salesman's face when I said, "No. Look, I want to pay the price of this top of the line model, but I only want the features on it that this bottom of the line $29.95 model has. - I want all the rest of the money to go toward reliability." - It was priceless! |
#71
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
Bill Graham wrote:
I am very heartened by your stsatement that "the way to make good microphones is by removing features." I will go a stem further and say, "The way to make good anything is by removing feaqtures." Yes, and the way to make something cheaper is by adding features. If you make a console that can be used as a PA or a recording console, you have twice as many potential customers and you can sell twice as many units as for something that can just be used as a recording console. The way cheap equipment is made cheap is by throwing a lot of features onto it which makes it possible to sell more units, and the more you sell the cheaper you can make them. This is why the pro audio world is not like the consumer electronics world. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#72
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Bill Graham wrote: I am very heartened by your stsatement that "the way to make good microphones is by removing features." I will go a stem further and say, "The way to make good anything is by removing feaqtures." Yes, and the way to make something cheaper is by adding features. If you make a console that can be used as a PA or a recording console, you have twice as many potential customers and you can sell twice as many units as for something that can just be used as a recording console. The way cheap equipment is made cheap is by throwing a lot of features onto it which makes it possible to sell more units, and the more you sell the cheaper you can make them. This is why the pro audio world is not like the consumer electronics world. --scott And the digital revolution has made it possible for more and more people to do their own recording, and CD manufacturing, and Book publishing in their own basements. There are both good things and bad things about this. One of the bad things is that you can no longer assume that when you buy a piece of art it was passed by experts before it was decided to produce it...there is a lot of crappy stuff out there. On the other hand, the good thing is that you don't have to know somebody, or wait in line for half a lifetime in order to get something before the public. |
#73
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
Bill Graham wrote:
I am not aware of the complexity of microphones. Are there more than one moving part inside one of those puppies? It's a great big Internet, Bill, and you owe it to yourself to chase that info. -- shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/ http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShai...withDougHarman |
#74
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
Bill Graham wrote:
My Martin is a 0018C, which was not their "top of the line" classical when it was built. That was the 00028C. Those guitars are intended to be strung with nylon, but they are not "classical guitars" in the generally applied not-born-of-a-marketing-department sense. -- shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/ http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShai...withDougHarman |
#75
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
On Dec 11, 4:38*am, "Bill Graham" wrote:
wrote: There is a studio in town that gets a ton of business largely for the vocal sound they achieve with their old Telefunken tube mic/preamp (and some mods, and a nice room of course). *That is one sweet mic for the application, and I doubt there is a $500 mic that could even come close. Perhaps, if its old enough, it cost $500 new? But, I have revised my figure to (perhaps) $1000 or so. I find that today, at 75, I am usually working with figures about twenty years old. I'm naturally assuming that a 75 year old is 1.66 times smarter than me |
#76
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
On Dec 11, 7:52*pm, (hank alrich) wrote:
Bill Graham wrote: My Martin is a 0018C, which was not their "top of the line" classical when it was built. That was the 00028C. Those guitars are intended to be strung with nylon, but they are not "classical guitars" in the generally applied not-born-of-a-marketing-department sense. And even with that caveat, a Martin something-28 isn't necessarily "better" than a something-18. 28s are rosewood, 18s are mahogany. Some people like the top-end sweetness of rosewood, others prefer the bottom thump of mahogany. They're equally good in different ways (but rosewood costs more, so Martin charges more for those guitars). Peace, Paul (a 00-18 guy) |
#77
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
Bill Graham wrote:
Neil Gould wrote: Bill Graham wrote: Neil Gould wrote: Bill Graham wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , "Bill Graham" wrote: I think that, like guitars, you don't gain much above $500. Man, do I disagree with that (the guitar part). Well, perhaps you should learn something about double blind tests. I know enough about double blind testing to tell you that you are misapplying the concept in this case. This is where someone who plays the guitar very well, but hasn't been informed what the test is all about, plays both instruments from behind a curtin, and you try to tell which one is the $5000 guitar, Is that a behind relative of Jane Curtin? ;-) If not, how does one play a guitar behind a curtain? The quality of a guitar is less about how it looks than how it feels, how it responds to the player, and the tonal result, which is significantly affected by the player. To one with little experience, the subtleties between, e.g. a $500 Yamaha and a $5,000 Martin may not be appreciated. To those with a lot of experience, the differences are obvious. Whether the differences are "worth it" or not is a personal matter. and which one is the $500 model. In this case, he can play the same guitar into the $500 mike, and again into the $9000 mike, and if a signiuficant number of audiophiles can tell which is which, then at least, I will know there is some difference. Whether that difference is worth $8500 is yet another story. I think you're missing some important factors, Bill. For example, consider trying to make two mics that have exactly the same audio characteristics. Microphone mechanics and production methods will insure that the number of components that get scrapped will far outnumber those that are usable for those two mics. Also, the cost of manufactured products is affected by production volume. It will cost a lot more to make 100 units a year of a particular product than 10,000. Put jsut those two factors together, and it is not hard to imagine that the cost of the mic will be astronomical. If you are trying to match two units at the manufacturing stage, then I will agree with you. But the way this is usually done is at the final test stage. There a mike is picked at random, and then the others are tested to find one with the same characteristics within some margin of error to be determined by the variance and audible detectability. This is a far cheaper way to get matched units. Your method is how manufacturing of cheap products is done. However, for high-quality when a product has interactive components, a more efficient approach is to match the individual components first, and then select the assembled products that most closely match. I suspect you can understand the reason for this. Yes. And, of course, there is no reason why both methods can't be combined. First, you try to build a batch as similar as possible, then you hand pick two or more with the most exact matching characteristics. Of course, a lot depends on the complexity of the item you are trying to match. It could be something very complex, or it could be a batch of pool balls. I am not aware of the complexity of microphones. Are there more than one moving part inside one of those puppies? If you re-read my statement, you will see that both methods *are* employed, but the important part is limiting the variables by first seleting components that match within tight tolerances. There is more than one critical component in a microphone and they interact, so the end result is a factorial of the number of components. -- Neil |
#78
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
On 12/11/2010 6:25 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
My Martin is a 0018C, which was not their "top of the line" classical when it was built. That was the 00028C. It does still sound very nice, The 0028C was more expensive than the 0018C, but they're different in price because of different materials and decoration. They sound different, but, like with the drednaught series, some have a preference for one sound and others have a preference for the other sound. but a real professional classical player wouldn't mess with Martins anyway. He/she would go to spain where there are classical guitars made in the mountains between Spain and France that cost many thousands Eventually, probably, that's true if his career path and instrument lust led him in that direction. But there are other guitar players than classical who are equally picky and deserving of the finest instruments. And many of them play Martins. 15 years ago, if they wanted a Martin-like guitar with little tweaks to fit their playing style, they had to go to a custom maker, but now Martin will customize just about anything for anybody, and they're very good guitars - but not classical guitars. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
#79
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
On Dec 11, 6:52*pm, (hank alrich) wrote:
Bill Graham wrote: My Martin is a 0018C, which was not their "top of the line" classical when it was built. That was the 00028C. Those guitars are intended to be strung with nylon, but they are not "classical guitars" in the generally applied not-born-of-a-marketing-department sense. -- shut up and play your guitar *http://hankalrich.com/http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.htmlhttp://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman Martin's only real "classical"l guitars were the N10 (mahogany) and N20(rosewood).Tthese had classical body shapes and neck width which the 00 series guitars do not. They also had a more "classical" sound than the 00 series nylon strung guitars. |
#80
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 16:21:04 -0500, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message Currently there are a lot of companies that are basically all using the same capsule designs, mostly adapted from some of the products of those old-line companies but often by people who didn't understand how they worked. These folks are very successful on the bottom end of the market, and they are using the technology they made cheap microphones with to make expensive microphones. BUT, they still don't have actual engineering skills and they don't know what makes a good product. So... you CAN get your money's worth when you buy an expensive microphone, but these days you don't NECESSARILY get it. I have reviewed some really dreadful $5000 microphones in the last few years. --scott Name two! Regards, Ty Ford --Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
FA 803s telefunkens NOS 12AX7 | Marketplace |