[Mike Rivers]

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

[Bill Graham]

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.

[mcp6453[_2_]]

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...

[Bill Graham]

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.

[Bill Graham]

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)

[Bill Graham]

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.

[Bill Graham]

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.

[Mike Rivers]

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

[Bill Graham]

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.

[Bill Graham]

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.

[Bill Graham]

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.

[Bill Graham]

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.

[Bill Graham]

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.

[Bill Graham]

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.....

[Bill Graham]

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.

[PStamler]

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

[Neil Gould]

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

[Ty Ford]

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

[Mike Rivers]

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

[hank alrich]

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

[hank alrich]

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

[[email protected]]

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

[Jenn[_2_]]

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

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Bill Graham]

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...:^)

[Bill Graham]

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?

[Bill Graham]

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.)

[Bill Graham]

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?

[Bill Graham]

wrote:
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.

Sorry, but I prefer to overtly jump in and ask. I learn a lot quicker that
way, and contrary to what you say, most of the posters on this (and other)
forums are happy to have my noise to post to. I have been known to take a
forum from two or three posts a day to two or three hundred. Now, that's
trolling, baby!
Besides, I add a lot to the discussions too. I haven't lived 75 years
for nothing. I can honestly say that I contribute as much as I gain. After
all, I spent much of my life as an electronics tech. I fixed radars for the
Navy, I repaired punched card equipment for IBM, and huge walk-in power
supplies for a high energy physics lab..... I am no dummy either, you know.

[Bill Graham]

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!

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Bill Graham]

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.

[hank alrich]

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

[hank alrich]

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

[rakmanenuff]

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

[PStamler]

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)

[Neil Gould]

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

[Mike Rivers]

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

[Richard Kuschel]

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.

[Ty Ford]

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