I've been recording since high school, c. 1972; mostly classical.

I've been striving, in my own inexpensive gear, to achieve transparent,
noiseless recording for three decades.

The most recent generation of gear in my rack is a pair of Schoeps CMC641's
feeding a Cranesong Spider. I thought I had achieved Nirvana.

Then I heard the BLUE B6 capsules on my old C451 bodies.

Now I'm forced to admit that absolute clarity and purity of sound is not
the only solution in all situations. Sometimes the perfectly accurate
sound is too sterile. I'm still not buying into the idea of introducing
any distortion into the recording chain, but I can see how the shimmer of
an "interesting" microphone can add to an already good recording.

I'm threatened with another case of Gear Aquisition Syndrome.

What are the primary condensor flavors out there? U-87, 251, C-12, ...

Carey Carlan wrote:

I heard the BLUE B6 capsules on my old C451 bodies.

Now I'm forced to admit that absolute clarity and purity of sound is not
the only solution in all situations. Sometimes the perfectly accurate
sound is too sterile. I'm still not buying into the idea of introducing
any distortion into the recording chain, but I can see how the shimmer of
an "interesting" microphone can add to an already good recording.

Budget suggestion: try your B6 on a C480B (or a modified C460B.)

Carey Carlan wrote:

I heard the BLUE B6 capsules on my old C451 bodies.

Now I'm forced to admit that absolute clarity and purity of sound is not
the only solution in all situations. Sometimes the perfectly accurate
sound is too sterile. I'm still not buying into the idea of introducing
any distortion into the recording chain, but I can see how the shimmer of
an "interesting" microphone can add to an already good recording.

The B6 is a rather wide cardioid, which you're comparing to a much more directional capsule.




I'm threatened with another case of Gear Aquisition Syndrome.

Budget suggestion: try your B6 on a C480B (or a modified C460B.)

You might also want to audition a pair of MK21's and/or MK21H's.

"Kurt Albershardt" wrote in message ...


I'm threatened with another case of Gear Aquisition Syndrome.

Budget suggestion: try your B6 on a C480B (or a modified C460B.)

You might also want to audition a pair of MK21's and/or MK21H's.

The MK-21 is my favorite of the Schoeps capsules... But it is still very
clean and can sound sterile... My favorite mic of my collection is my AKG
426 stereo mic. It has a slightly "wooly" sound but that coloration makes
it seem to work on everything. It makes a ****ty room sound good and a good
room sound great.

I've also been enjoying work lately using the Royer active ribbon mics, but
that is a whole different sound entirely.

--Ben


--
Benjamin Maas
Fifth Circle Audio
Los Angeles, CA
http://www.fifthcircle.com

Please remove "Nospam" from address for replies

Kurt Albershardt wrote in
:

The B6 is a rather wide cardioid, which you're comparing to a much
more directional capsule.

Allowing for that. There is a real difference in the character of the
microphones. I like both, but most microphones that intentionally hype or
otherwise distort the signal don't excite my ear like these.

I'm threatened with another case of Gear Aquisition Syndrome.

Budget suggestion: try your B6 on a C480B (or a modified C460B.)

It's not a budget suggestion if I already own the 451's.

You might also want to audition a pair of MK21's and/or MK21H's.

Those are already on the GAS list.

But the question before the committee is this:

You with experience on many microphones probably divides them into
families. For instance, many Chinese mics claim to be in the U87 familiy.
Then there is the Elam 251 familty and the AKC C12 family (which includes
the B6 capsule mentioned above).

Are there other condenser microphones so famous that they have a covey of
imitators and competitors?

Benjamin Maas wrote:

My favorite mic of my collection is my AKG
426 stereo mic. It has a slightly "wooly" sound but that coloration makes
it seem to work on everything. It makes a ****ty room sound good and a good
room sound great.

That's what I think of as "the romance filter efect", like used in
photography for Valentine sweetheart pics. I don't know why it works, or
how it really works, but the resulting softening of the fine points of
some sounds results in something far more pleasing to listen to.

This is what people want in a plug-in, and it ain't happening. g

--
ha

hank alrich wrote:

[...] It has a slightly "wooly" sound but that coloration makes
it seem to work on everything. It makes a ****ty room sound good and a good
room sound great.

That's what I think of as "the romance filter efect", like used in
photography for Valentine sweetheart pics. [...]

hmmm, I don't know those mics, but can't help thinking about pictures
when I read the above. I do have strong opinions about what filters and
lenses processing do to pictures. The effects of a softening filter or a
polarising filter supposedly "enhances" pictures by hiding unwanted
detail like skin structure or "deepening" colours. Especially as used by
ad agencies and especially american ones (i.e. coca cola). Retouching
pictures to "enhance" the appearance of skin, teeth, smoothness of hair
etc etc. I hate it. It looks awful and artificial. It looks "commercial
picture" (professional if you like - still ugly). Also compare BBC
TV-series to american (visuals that is) totally different, where the
american ones have that artificial "shimmer" - usch... the audio
equivalent can most prominently be heard in movies, or commercials.
Similarly awful IMNHO. I hope it's not that kind of "wolly" "romance
filter" you're looking for in recordings...


Lars


--
lars farm // http://www.farm.se
lars is also a mail-account on the server farm.se

Lars Farm wrote:

..snip...

hmmm, I don't know those mics, but can't help thinking about pictures
when I read the above. I do have strong opinions about what filters and
lenses processing do to pictures. The effects of a softening filter or a
polarising filter supposedly "enhances" pictures by hiding unwanted
detail like skin structure or "deepening" colours. Especially as used by
ad agencies and especially american ones (i.e. coca cola). Retouching
pictures to "enhance" the appearance of skin, teeth, smoothness of hair
etc etc. I hate it. It looks awful and artificial. It looks "commercial
picture" (professional if you like - still ugly). Also compare BBC
TV-series to american (visuals that is) totally different, where the
american ones have that artificial "shimmer" - usch... the audio
equivalent can most prominently be heard in movies, or commercials.
Similarly awful IMNHO. I hope it's not that kind of "wolly" "romance
filter" you're looking for in recordings...

Lars

So you're into the "reality" of music rather than the "art." Hmmm, wonder
what you're thoughts are on painting. To each their own.
Then too, what's the point of a "commercial picture" or for that
matter a "commercial recording" ... .. .

Later...

Ron Capik cynic in training
--

Ron Capik wrote:

So you're into the "reality" of music rather than the "art." Hmmm, wonder
what you're thoughts are on painting. To each their own.

In music I tend to think of the performer as the artist. Admittedly
there is an element of art in the recording too. More so in some genres
than others.

Then too, what's the point of a "commercial picture" or for that
matter a "commercial recording" ... .. .

Well, as in recordings its about the purpose of the recording/picture
and what you think sells. As for pictures there is a definite difference
between european and american visual preferenses as can be witnessed by
comparing for instance a BBC production to any american TV production.
I'm european (but not Brittish...;-)

There are parallells in audio preferences.

Lars


--
lars farm // http://www.farm.se
lars is also a mail-account on the server farm.se

(Lars Farm) wrote in
news:1go1dwk.1shlqxb1c6a9j4N%mail.addr.can.be.foun :

Ron Capik wrote:

So you're into the "reality" of music rather than the "art." Hmmm,
wonder what you're thoughts are on painting. To each their own.

In music I tend to think of the performer as the artist. Admittedly
there is an element of art in the recording too. More so in some
genres than others.

So wonderful to find on-topic replies to on-topic threads.

That's my point about the B6. I love my Schoeps for their scalpel clean
sound. I love my new B6 capsules for what they do that's not so clean.
Each has a place in the real world.

Then too, what's the point of a "commercial picture" or for that
matter a "commercial recording" ... .. .

Well, as in recordings its about the purpose of the recording/picture
and what you think sells. As for pictures there is a definite
difference between european and american visual preferenses as can be
witnessed by comparing for instance a BBC production to any american
TV production. I'm european (but not Brittish...;-)

Having not paid much attention to British production values, myself, I ask,
How are they different?

I started that way. And have found recently that there is no "best" I
often find myself blowing up drum tracks on my Tascam 424, Four track
apocalypse g Made some mic's from some supplies at radioshack. get
that lo-fi.... Maybe trying to use the gear you have differently.
"Unconventionally" maybe. However when recording classical I guess
options, while not limited the idea is to repreduce the performance as
clean as possible. i.e. No over the top compression and distortion.
ehhhh... my .02 cents anyway.

cheers

garrett



On 2004-11-28 17:29:21 -0800, Carey Carlan said:

I've been recording since high school, c. 1972; mostly classical.

I've been striving, in my own inexpensive gear, to achieve transparent,
noiseless recording for three decades.

The most recent generation of gear in my rack is a pair of Schoeps
CMC641's feeding a Cranesong Spider. I thought I had achieved Nirvana.

Then I heard the BLUE B6 capsules on my old C451 bodies.

Now I'm forced to admit that absolute clarity and purity of sound is
not the only solution in all situations. Sometimes the perfectly
accurate sound is too sterile. I'm still not buying into the idea of
introducing any distortion into the recording chain, but I can see how
the shimmer of an "interesting" microphone can add to an already good
recording.

I'm threatened with another case of Gear Aquisition Syndrome.

What are the primary condensor flavors out there? U-87, 251, C-12, ...

"Carey Carlan" wrote in message
. 191...
Kurt Albershardt wrote in
:

The B6 is a rather wide cardioid, which you're comparing to a much
more directional capsule.

Allowing for that. There is a real difference in the character of the
microphones. I like both, but most microphones that intentionally hype or
otherwise distort the signal don't excite my ear like these.

I'm threatened with another case of Gear Aquisition Syndrome.

Budget suggestion: try your B6 on a C480B (or a modified C460B.)

It's not a budget suggestion if I already own the 451's.

You might also want to audition a pair of MK21's and/or MK21H's.

Those are already on the GAS list.

But the question before the committee is this:

You with experience on many microphones probably divides them into
families. For instance, many Chinese mics claim to be in the U87 familiy.
Then there is the Elam 251 familty and the AKC C12 family (which includes
the B6 capsule mentioned above).

Most of the chinese mics I've tried are only visually similar to the U87.
Soundwise, they are closer to the C12 family (read: bright). I'm not saying
that they are close, though.


Are there other condenser microphones so famous that they have a covey of
imitators and competitors?

U47?

Predrag

Carey Carlan wrote:

...snip..

Each has a place in the real world.

...snip..
TV production. I'm european (but not Brittish...;-)

Having not paid much attention to British production values, myself, I ask,
How are they different?

I'm going to guess this is a YMMV thing; in my experience many slavish
[ Soviet, Polish, etc.] have way more ambiance (reverb) than fits my taste.
I guess it might be a realistic representation of the audience experience
in one of those large stone cathedrals.

It's a big world, lots of room for variation and taste.

Later...

Ron Capik
--

"Lars Farm" wrote in message ...
hank alrich wrote:

[...] It has a slightly "wooly" sound but that coloration makes
it seem to work on everything. It makes a ****ty room sound good and a
good
room sound great.

That's what I think of as "the romance filter efect", like used in
photography for Valentine sweetheart pics. [...]

I hope it's not that kind of "wolly" "romance
filter" you're looking for in recordings...


The mic in question is actually a very clear, but slightly warm sounding
mic. It is large diaphragm and has much of the characteristics of a
large-dia. mic as well... It is not hyped like many of today's condensers,
but clear with what may be considered a slight mid-range bump (or lack of
accentuation of top and bottom end).

As I said before, even ****ty rooms sound good with this mic. Good rooms
sound fantastic. Compare this to a Schoeps mic where it will tell you
exactly how bad your room may be...

--Ben

--
Benjamin Maas
Fifth Circle Audio
Los Angeles, CA
http://www.fifthcircle.com

Please remove "Nospam" from address for replies

"Lars Farm" wrote in message ...
Ron Capik wrote:

So you're into the "reality" of music rather than the "art." Hmmm, wonder
what you're thoughts are on painting. To each their own.

In music I tend to think of the performer as the artist. Admittedly
there is an element of art in the recording too. More so in some genres
than others.


No art in recording? Common.... Let's get real here. Recording is quite
definitely an art. It depends on capturing somebody else's performance
(their art), but to capture it is a completely subjective process.

--Ben

--
Benjamin Maas
Fifth Circle Audio
Los Angeles, CA
http://www.fifthcircle.com

Please remove "Nospam" from address for replies

Predrag Trpkov wrote:
"Carey Carlan" wrote in message
. 191...

You with experience on many microphones probably divides them into
families. For instance, many Chinese mics claim to be in the U87 familiy.
Then there is the Elam 251 familty and the AKC C12 family (which includes
the B6 capsule mentioned above).


Most of the chinese mics I've tried are only visually similar to the U87.
Soundwise, they are closer to the C12 family (read: bright).

The capsules in the Josephson C700 & C700S are patterned after the C12, yet their sound is far less bright than most of the others which claim C12 ancestry.

That's what I think of as "the romance filter efect", like used in
photography for Valentine sweetheart pics. I don't know why it works, or
how it really works, but the resulting softening of the fine points of
some sounds results in something far more pleasing to listen to.

This is what people want in a plug-in, and it ain't happening. g

--
ha

Hank - you already know this, but for others who might not:

It's one of the things that makes particular pieces of "vintage" gear (that
might not be so "vintage" to those of us who are a bit "vintage" ourselves) so
desirable, whether it's RCA 44s and 77s, Neumann U67s, Teletronix LA2As, 70s
era Neve modules, Pultec and Lang EQs etc. etc. etc...

They all can *at times* impart a very pleasing sonic character by (among other
things) adding mild to not-so-mild harmonic distortion, slurring transient
response, rolling off top end, adding something damn close to a short reverb to
the low end...and so on. They also do what they're supposed to (capture the
sound, compress, EQ, etc) in a useful way, but it's the often heavy coloration
(for the most part unintended by the original designers, who were doing the
best they could to make high fidelity gear with what they had at the time),
that makes them so special now.

Used at the wrong time and place they usually just sound lo-fi in a bad way.
That's where you want the nice clean, modern gear.

Choosing the right gear chain for a specific application is like cooking. The
just-right combination of ingredients and spices for one dish could be the
just-wrong one for another. What that combination actually turns out to be can
be pretty surprising sometimes...


Ted Spencer, NYC

"No amount of classical training will ever teach you what's so cool about
"Tighten Up" by Archie Bell And The Drells" -author unknown

you know, I dont think of any mic as neutral. The Josephson series 6 is pretty
close as far as mics go, but I always find the schoeps pleasing and the mk41's
are great sub cardioids, not at all like the usual sound associated with those.
Color can be acheived a lot of ways, my only gripe is that so much of the color
these days has to do with compression and tape emulation, which all sounds like
hell to me. a u-47 on the other hand, can be just the trick for some things (if
you have a good one).


P h i l i p

______________________________

"I'm too ****ing busy and vice-versa"

- Dorothy Parker

Now I'm forced to admit that absolute clarity and purity of sound is not
the only solution in all situations. Sometimes the perfectly accurate
sound is too sterile.

Well, yeah. Sometimes to achieve the appearance of transparency you have to do
things that purists won't ever consider, on strictly philosophical grounds,
like EQ & compression. And microphones with personality can add spice. Pea soup
made just from peas may be an accurate representation of the taste of peas, but
pea soup with spices added is an interesting eating experience.

I'm still not buying into the idea of introducing
any distortion into the recording chain, but I can see how the shimmer of
an "interesting" microphone can add to an already good recording. BRBR

I think one has to simply get over ones opposition to close miking if that's
the flavor that gives us listening pleasure.


Scott Fraser

Now I'm forced to admit that absolute clarity and purity of sound is not
the only solution in all situations. Sometimes the perfectly accurate
sound is too sterile.

Well, yeah. Sometimes to achieve the appearance of transparency you have to do
things that purists won't ever consider, on strictly philosophical grounds,
like EQ & compression. And microphones with personality can add spice. Pea soup
made just from peas may be an accurate representation of the taste of peas, but
pea soup with spices added is an interesting eating experience.

I'm still not buying into the idea of introducing
any distortion into the recording chain, but I can see how the shimmer of
an "interesting" microphone can add to an already good recording. BRBR

I think one has to simply get over ones opposition to close miking if that's
the flavor that gives us listening pleasure.


Scott Fraser

You with experience on many microphones probably divides them into
families. For instance, many Chinese mics claim to be in the U87 familiy.
Then there is the Elam 251 familty and the AKC C12 family (which includes
the B6 capsule mentioned above).
Are there other condenser microphones so famous that they have a covey of
imitators and competitors?

The U47 is probably the most imitated of the several main food groups.
Scott Fraser

You with experience on many microphones probably divides them into
families. For instance, many Chinese mics claim to be in the U87 familiy.
Then there is the Elam 251 familty and the AKC C12 family (which includes
the B6 capsule mentioned above).
Are there other condenser microphones so famous that they have a covey of
imitators and competitors?

The U47 is probably the most imitated of the several main food groups.
Scott Fraser

In article ,
(ScotFraser) wrote:

Now I'm forced to admit that absolute clarity and purity of sound is not
the only solution in all situations. Sometimes the perfectly accurate
sound is too sterile.

Well, yeah. Sometimes to achieve the appearance of transparency you have to
do
things that purists won't ever consider, on strictly philosophical grounds,
like EQ & compression. And microphones with personality can add spice. Pea
soup
made just from peas may be an accurate representation of the taste of peas,
but
pea soup with spices added is an interesting eating experience.

I'm still not buying into the idea of introducing
any distortion into the recording chain, but I can see how the shimmer of
an "interesting" microphone can add to an already good recording. BRBR

I think one has to simply get over ones opposition to close miking if that's
the flavor that gives us listening pleasure.


Scott Fraser

As much as I have tried not to, I find I still like the hyper-realistic
representation I can create better than the actual sounds that come into the
microphones. I guess that's where the fun lies for me. It is kind of like
cooking.

The best thing about teaching others about recording is seeing their faces when
they realize what can be done with dynamics processing and equalization.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x

In article ,
(ScotFraser) wrote:

Now I'm forced to admit that absolute clarity and purity of sound is not
the only solution in all situations. Sometimes the perfectly accurate
sound is too sterile.

Well, yeah. Sometimes to achieve the appearance of transparency you have to
do
things that purists won't ever consider, on strictly philosophical grounds,
like EQ & compression. And microphones with personality can add spice. Pea
soup
made just from peas may be an accurate representation of the taste of peas,
but
pea soup with spices added is an interesting eating experience.

I'm still not buying into the idea of introducing
any distortion into the recording chain, but I can see how the shimmer of
an "interesting" microphone can add to an already good recording. BRBR

I think one has to simply get over ones opposition to close miking if that's
the flavor that gives us listening pleasure.


Scott Fraser

As much as I have tried not to, I find I still like the hyper-realistic
representation I can create better than the actual sounds that come into the
microphones. I guess that's where the fun lies for me. It is kind of like
cooking.

The best thing about teaching others about recording is seeing their faces when
they realize what can be done with dynamics processing and equalization.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x

Carey Carlan wrote:

I'm still not buying into the idea of introducing
any distortion into the recording chain,

I buy into that idea anytime I think it'll get a sound I want. It's not
where I'd start, but I can go there and enjoy the trip.

--
ha

Carey Carlan wrote:

I'm still not buying into the idea of introducing
any distortion into the recording chain,

I buy into that idea anytime I think it'll get a sound I want. It's not
where I'd start, but I can go there and enjoy the trip.

--
ha

Jay Kadis wrote in
:

As much as I have tried not to, I find I still like the
hyper-realistic representation I can create better than the actual
sounds that come into the microphones. I guess that's where the fun
lies for me. It is kind of like cooking.

The best thing about teaching others about recording is seeing their
faces when they realize what can be done with dynamics processing and
equalization.

How do you get "hyper-realistic" and compression/EQ into the same thought?

I guess I'm really asking how you define hyper-realistic.

Jay Kadis wrote in
:

As much as I have tried not to, I find I still like the
hyper-realistic representation I can create better than the actual
sounds that come into the microphones. I guess that's where the fun
lies for me. It is kind of like cooking.

The best thing about teaching others about recording is seeing their
faces when they realize what can be done with dynamics processing and
equalization.

How do you get "hyper-realistic" and compression/EQ into the same thought?

I guess I'm really asking how you define hyper-realistic.

Carey Carlan wrote:

Jay Kadis wrote:

As much as I have tried not to, I find I still like the
hyper-realistic representation I can create better than the actual
sounds that come into the microphones. I guess that's where the fun
lies for me. It is kind of like cooking.

The best thing about teaching others about recording is seeing their
faces when they realize what can be done with dynamics processing and
equalization.

How do you get "hyper-realistic" and compression/EQ into the same thought?

I guess I'm really asking how you define hyper-realistic.

Well, since hyper means: Over; above; beyond; excessive; or excessively,
"hyper-realistic" would be over or beyond realistic, putting it into a class
above Radio Shack products. Wasn't that a song in the movie Mary Poppins?

Super-hyper-realistic-expi-ali-do-sious?

Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/

Carey Carlan wrote:

Jay Kadis wrote:

As much as I have tried not to, I find I still like the
hyper-realistic representation I can create better than the actual
sounds that come into the microphones. I guess that's where the fun
lies for me. It is kind of like cooking.

The best thing about teaching others about recording is seeing their
faces when they realize what can be done with dynamics processing and
equalization.

How do you get "hyper-realistic" and compression/EQ into the same thought?

I guess I'm really asking how you define hyper-realistic.

Well, since hyper means: Over; above; beyond; excessive; or excessively,
"hyper-realistic" would be over or beyond realistic, putting it into a class
above Radio Shack products. Wasn't that a song in the movie Mary Poppins?

Super-hyper-realistic-expi-ali-do-sious?

Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/

On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 11:59:22 -0500, ScotFraser wrote
(in article ):

Now I'm forced to admit that absolute clarity and purity of sound is not
the only solution in all situations. Sometimes the perfectly accurate
sound is too sterile.

Well, yeah. Sometimes to achieve the appearance of transparency you have to
do
things that purists won't ever consider, on strictly philosophical grounds,
like EQ & compression. And microphones with personality can add spice. Pea
soup
made just from peas may be an accurate representation of the taste of peas,
but
pea soup with spices added is an interesting eating experience.

I'm still not buying into the idea of introducing
any distortion into the recording chain, but I can see how the shimmer of
an "interesting" microphone can add to an already good recording. BRBR

I think one has to simply get over ones opposition to close miking if that's
the flavor that gives us listening pleasure.


Scott Fraser

I agree. And if you're using microphones and speakers to do your work, you've
already given up any and all hopes for sonic purity. All that stuff is a myth
about the size of Lake Erie. We are custodians of the remnants of what our
devices slice off of reality. We never get the full loaf.

As a result, we used those crumbs to form our own personal meatloafs. In the
best of cases, everyone likes what we bring to the table. In the worst of
cases, well, did you ever notice that your own farts always smell better or
more interesting than any one elses?

Regards,

Ty Ford




-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 11:59:22 -0500, ScotFraser wrote
(in article ):

Now I'm forced to admit that absolute clarity and purity of sound is not
the only solution in all situations. Sometimes the perfectly accurate
sound is too sterile.

Well, yeah. Sometimes to achieve the appearance of transparency you have to
do
things that purists won't ever consider, on strictly philosophical grounds,
like EQ & compression. And microphones with personality can add spice. Pea
soup
made just from peas may be an accurate representation of the taste of peas,
but
pea soup with spices added is an interesting eating experience.

I'm still not buying into the idea of introducing
any distortion into the recording chain, but I can see how the shimmer of
an "interesting" microphone can add to an already good recording. BRBR

I think one has to simply get over ones opposition to close miking if that's
the flavor that gives us listening pleasure.


Scott Fraser

I agree. And if you're using microphones and speakers to do your work, you've
already given up any and all hopes for sonic purity. All that stuff is a myth
about the size of Lake Erie. We are custodians of the remnants of what our
devices slice off of reality. We never get the full loaf.

As a result, we used those crumbs to form our own personal meatloafs. In the
best of cases, everyone likes what we bring to the table. In the worst of
cases, well, did you ever notice that your own farts always smell better or
more interesting than any one elses?

Regards,

Ty Ford




-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

Super-hyper-realistic-expi-ali-do-sious? BRBR


I thought it was "Super-Hyper-Realistic-Chronic-Halitosis".

Oh, wait, that wasn't Mary Poppins, it was my 97 year old great-grandmother.


Joe Egan
EMP
Colchester, VT
www.eganmedia.com

Super-hyper-realistic-expi-ali-do-sious? BRBR


I thought it was "Super-Hyper-Realistic-Chronic-Halitosis".

Oh, wait, that wasn't Mary Poppins, it was my 97 year old great-grandmother.


Joe Egan
EMP
Colchester, VT
www.eganmedia.com

In article ,
Carey Carlan wrote:

Jay Kadis wrote in
:

As much as I have tried not to, I find I still like the
hyper-realistic representation I can create better than the actual
sounds that come into the microphones. I guess that's where the fun
lies for me. It is kind of like cooking.

The best thing about teaching others about recording is seeing their
faces when they realize what can be done with dynamics processing and
equalization.

How do you get "hyper-realistic" and compression/EQ into the same thought?

I guess I'm really asking how you define hyper-realistic.

The flushing up of the low-amplitude sonic details by compression and limiting
and judicious spectral tweeking with EQ make the sound realistic in the sense
that you can hear the details of the sounds even when they would have otherwise
been masked in a complicated mix. But it's not what you would hear in the
tracking room.

The term hyper-realistic comes from Dan Levitin, a former editor for RE/P and
now a cognitive psychologist at McGill.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x

In article ,
Carey Carlan wrote:

Jay Kadis wrote in
:

As much as I have tried not to, I find I still like the
hyper-realistic representation I can create better than the actual
sounds that come into the microphones. I guess that's where the fun
lies for me. It is kind of like cooking.

The best thing about teaching others about recording is seeing their
faces when they realize what can be done with dynamics processing and
equalization.

How do you get "hyper-realistic" and compression/EQ into the same thought?

I guess I'm really asking how you define hyper-realistic.

The flushing up of the low-amplitude sonic details by compression and limiting
and judicious spectral tweeking with EQ make the sound realistic in the sense
that you can hear the details of the sounds even when they would have otherwise
been masked in a complicated mix. But it's not what you would hear in the
tracking room.

The term hyper-realistic comes from Dan Levitin, a former editor for RE/P and
now a cognitive psychologist at McGill.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x

Jay Kadis wrote in
:

The flushing up of the low-amplitude sonic details by compression and
limiting and judicious spectral tweeking with EQ make the sound
realistic in the sense that you can hear the details of the sounds
even when they would have otherwise been masked in a complicated mix.
But it's not what you would hear in the tracking room.

The term hyper-realistic comes from Dan Levitin, a former editor for
RE/P and now a cognitive psychologist at McGill.

I understand and agree with compression and EQ when creating a mix. Do you
agree that, given an agreeable source, they aren't necessary in a solo
stereo setting?

I am sometimes asked for a "car" mix, meaning squashed to hell. I can do
that, too, and it even sounds OK when I use the limiter built into my
Spider (an underrated feature of that august machine). But my main focus
is full dynamic range. The sample I posted on my webpage approaches 70 dB
from quietest to peak.

Jay Kadis wrote in
:

The flushing up of the low-amplitude sonic details by compression and
limiting and judicious spectral tweeking with EQ make the sound
realistic in the sense that you can hear the details of the sounds
even when they would have otherwise been masked in a complicated mix.
But it's not what you would hear in the tracking room.

The term hyper-realistic comes from Dan Levitin, a former editor for
RE/P and now a cognitive psychologist at McGill.

I understand and agree with compression and EQ when creating a mix. Do you
agree that, given an agreeable source, they aren't necessary in a solo
stereo setting?

I am sometimes asked for a "car" mix, meaning squashed to hell. I can do
that, too, and it even sounds OK when I use the limiter built into my
Spider (an underrated feature of that august machine). But my main focus
is full dynamic range. The sample I posted on my webpage approaches 70 dB
from quietest to peak.

In article ,
Carey Carlan wrote:

Jay Kadis wrote in
:

The flushing up of the low-amplitude sonic details by compression and
limiting and judicious spectral tweeking with EQ make the sound
realistic in the sense that you can hear the details of the sounds
even when they would have otherwise been masked in a complicated mix.
But it's not what you would hear in the tracking room.

The term hyper-realistic comes from Dan Levitin, a former editor for
RE/P and now a cognitive psychologist at McGill.

I understand and agree with compression and EQ when creating a mix. Do you
agree that, given an agreeable source, they aren't necessary in a solo
stereo setting?


Absolutely. I was only referring to rock'n'roll context.

But how about in the mastering stage? I'm editing an early music recorder CD
that my brother is co-producing, Buxtehude and the like, and they are concerned
with getting the volume of the CD up to "commercial" levels. I think we're
going to need to use some clean limiting on that. But I wouldn't mess with the
dynamics any more than that.

I am sometimes asked for a "car" mix, meaning squashed to hell. I can do
that, too, and it even sounds OK when I use the limiter built into my
Spider (an underrated feature of that august machine). But my main focus
is full dynamic range. The sample I posted on my webpage approaches 70 dB
from quietest to peak.

Then there's the issue of the noise floor in churches and similar venues.
Recording a harpsichord in a very ambient church in the middle of town does
present its problems. Have you ever used expansion?

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x

In article ,
Carey Carlan wrote:

Jay Kadis wrote in
:

The flushing up of the low-amplitude sonic details by compression and
limiting and judicious spectral tweeking with EQ make the sound
realistic in the sense that you can hear the details of the sounds
even when they would have otherwise been masked in a complicated mix.
But it's not what you would hear in the tracking room.

The term hyper-realistic comes from Dan Levitin, a former editor for
RE/P and now a cognitive psychologist at McGill.

I understand and agree with compression and EQ when creating a mix. Do you
agree that, given an agreeable source, they aren't necessary in a solo
stereo setting?


Absolutely. I was only referring to rock'n'roll context.

But how about in the mastering stage? I'm editing an early music recorder CD
that my brother is co-producing, Buxtehude and the like, and they are concerned
with getting the volume of the CD up to "commercial" levels. I think we're
going to need to use some clean limiting on that. But I wouldn't mess with the
dynamics any more than that.

I am sometimes asked for a "car" mix, meaning squashed to hell. I can do
that, too, and it even sounds OK when I use the limiter built into my
Spider (an underrated feature of that august machine). But my main focus
is full dynamic range. The sample I posted on my webpage approaches 70 dB
from quietest to peak.

Then there's the issue of the noise floor in churches and similar venues.
Recording a harpsichord in a very ambient church in the middle of town does
present its problems. Have you ever used expansion?

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x