Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 20:31:33 -0500, mcp6453 wrote
(in article ): 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. While I do have experience with some pretty expensive mics and preamp, $9000 for a mic is a bit over the top. I don't think they'll make recordings that are X times better than my $2000 mikes. Some of the 1930-1940 Martin guitars were selling in the $25,000-$35,000 range at a guitar show a couple of years ago. They sounded very nice, but the multiples don't add up. 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 |
#82
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 18:48:56 -0500, Bill Graham wrote
(in article ) : 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. Then please get back to us after you have used a Schoeps. 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 |
#83
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
Ty Ford wrote:
On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 18:48:56 -0500, Bill Graham wrote (in article ) : 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. Then please get back to us after you have used a Schoeps. Thank you, Ty. -- shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/ http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShai...withDougHarman |
#84
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 11:30:23 -0500, Ty Ford
wrote: 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 Some friends brought over the Curtis Technology AL-2 Tube mic system for me to check out about 10 years ago. They were AWFUL! List on those was $3000.00 for a stereo pair. Rick Ruskin Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA http://liondogmusic.com http://www.myspace.com/rickruskin |
#85
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
Rick Ruskin wrote:
Some friends brought over the Curtis Technology AL-2 Tube mic system for me to check out about 10 years ago. They were AWFUL! List on those was $3000.00 for a stereo pair. Those had no high end response to speak of, yeah. And the sad part is that if the engineers had done the math before they selected the diaphragm material they did, they should have been able to predict that. So maybe that's what they were aiming for... or maybe they made a mistake. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#86
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
In article
, PStamler wrote: 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) The other difference between the 18s and the 28s are the "appointments" on the 28s...generally more expensive bindings, etc. Martin went through 15 years or so of general mediocracy, but has come back strong. My OMC-28 Laurence Juber Pro is my favorite of all factory-made guitars. -- www.jennifermartinmusic.com |
#87
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
Scott Dorsey wrote:
: Rick Ruskin wrote: : Some friends brought over the Curtis Technology AL-2 Tube mic system : for me to check out about 10 years ago. They were AWFUL! : Those had no high end response to speak of, yeah. I'm curious, how did such a mic manage to get such a favorable review in MIX magazine? |
#88
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
On 12/12/2010 2:40 PM,
wrote: I'm curious, how did such a mic manage to get such a favorable review in MIX magazine? Every mic is good for SOMETHING. But I suspect that it had something to do with buying a few quarter-page ads, and perhaps a reviewer who had an an application that didn't require a lot of top end. -- "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 |
#89
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
On Dec 10, 9:55*pm, "Bill Graham" wrote:
Cyberserf wrote: On Dec 10, 2:28 am, "Bill Graham" wrote: hank alrich 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). Bill knows less about guitars than he does about mics, and in a professional audio forum context, he don't know **** about mics. I played the classical guitar for several years....I know that Andre Segovia had several 18th century harpsichords smashed up to get the wood for his guitar, but I bet he never took a double blind test either. I have been working with musicians for a long time now, and I know the way they think. They are so impressionable that they will deny physics to cling to their beliefs. Ask a trumpet player about, "projection" sometime. And about "cryogenic treatment" also. (if you want to get a good laugh) How much would you pay for a Sergovia? Only $500? You're saying that a Martin HD28 (above $500) is not much better than a Yamaha F310 (below $500)...might you see where that might stretch the credulity of anyone who knows anything about guitars? In my neck of the woods $500 is where quality STARTS in guitars...I have worked on and played literally thousands of guitars in all sorts of price ranges over 30 years as a stringed instrument technician...there are very few sub $500 guitars built today that I would recommend to anyone...Instruments below $500 get you laminated woods (tops/back and sides), inferior components, bad designs and sloppy build quality...you don't even have to play them to feel how precarious they are. Perhaps you meant to write $5000...in which case I would still disagree, though much less vehemently. I have also worked with a number of musicians...all have been very well informed and passionate about their sound...rather than impressionable, I would describe them as bull-headed and driven. Funny how perceptions can be so divergent. -CS $500 is where quality starts, but I am speaking of where good sound starts. Can you really tell the difference in sound of a $500 guitar over a $5000 one? I mean in a really good double blind test, where someone else was playing the music behind a curtain? I am a musician myself. I love good quality instruments. If I had the money, I would probably buy myself a horn that cost over $5000. But, I also know that it probably would really not sound any better than several I have that cost under $1000 when I bought them several years ago. IOW, I am just as subseptable to the old placebo effect as is anyone else. The only difference is, I know about the effect, and many musicians do not. I love good guitars too. My Martin is a good example. It only cost me a couple of hundred dollars when I bought it back in the 70's. Today, it is worth several thousand dollars. But it is still the same guitar! And, it doesn't sound any better than it did when I first bought it! But when my guitar playing friends come over to my place and play it, they say, Oh, my! Does this guitar sound good! And, it really does sound good. But in my heart, I know that there are $500 instruments on the market that would sound just as good. And, as audio engineering advances, there are factories that could produce better sounding guitars using modern plastics and carefully engineered shapes, coupled with good miking and fancy digital effects that C.F.Martin never thought possible. IOW, we are fast entering a whole different age in instrument design, and like with film cameras, we will never be able to look back. Bill, You may have a point about the future direction of instruments, though I've played Ovations and other carbon composite guitars...they leave me cold. The point about quality is, as you know, a good bit of the "sound" comes from the player...and good quality instruments are easier to play, thus, they sound better when played by a larger variety of artists. Keep in mind, your $200 Martin (whatever model) would be sold new today for $1,200+...well above the $500 mark anyway...you are being offered more due to its vintage status (that's the hype)...it is the same guitar, but $500 today does not buy you what it did yesterday. As I said...had you put the bar higher (say at 3K), I would have had very little issue with the statement, when they all play and sound good, they all play and sound good. My point is simply that many sub-$500 instruments today verge on the unplayable...and yes, in many cases, you can hear the difference, but in all cases, as a player, you can feel them. Regards, CS |
#90
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
Close-miking the throat of a trumpet bell, with the mic feeding an
effects stompbox and an instrument combo amp, what would such a comparison teach anyone? |
#91
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
Bill Graham writes:
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. snip again 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! MIght be, and quantity has nothing to do with quality./ But then, if you think it is, then we're pretty much wasting our time trying to explain to you why the criteria we use to judge microphones aren't all relevant to the world of the beer hall and the senior center. THere are reasons the Schoeps, Josephson, etc. are worth the money they ask for them. THink I mentioned that in another one of my posts, as did SCott Dorsey and others. G Besides, I add a lot to the discussions too. I haven't lived 75 G years for nothing. I can honestly say that I contribute as much as G I gain. After all, I spent much of my life as an electronics tech. G 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. Understand that, and were we talking power supply design, or rf immunity you'd have some relevant points to make I'm sure. But, if you don't understand the difference and why some of us might reach for a Schoeps or other high end microphone then all you're doing is making a lot of noise. That you can't keep your political myopia out of discussions on this forum tells me all I need to know about you MR. Graham. plkunk IN other words, when you don't know anything about the topic, Hank has it right, you should stfu. YOur tea party is full of medicare moochers. Richard .... Karaoke: Orig. Japanese "Tone-deaf drunk with microphone". ___ -- | Remove .my.foot for email | via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site | Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own. |
#92
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
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. 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. Where trhis analogy comes apart is that the value in a guitar is not entirely the amount or quality of sound. Performance factors are a large part of it too, and are incredibly variable. geoff |
#93
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
hank alrich wrote:
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. Yeah, but there is an easy way and a hard way to find out most anything, and the easy way for me with this is to wait for the results of that double blind test......:^) |
#94
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
On Thu, 09 Dec 2010 23:13:59 -0800, Bill Graham wrote:
Well, perhaps you should learn something about double blind tests. Most subscribers to this group know a LOT about DBTs and you won't win many friends though being so patronising. 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. Never mind the listeners behind the curtain, ask the PLAYER which guitar he prefers. That is one clue to the difference between mics - a good audio engineer might be able to get a good guitar sound with a cheap mic but it's likely to be much harder work (time = money) fiddling with mic position, room acoustics and (as a last resort) EQ. It's reasonable question to ask why a $9000 mic costs so much more than a $9 mic. Here are some clues: - Find out who did the research work designing the mic (as oppposed to copying someone else's design). - Look at the pay and working conditions of the people employed to make the mics. - Go to the factory and see how much testing they do at every stage of manufacture. And to what tolerances they measure everything. - Find out how much the design for optimum performance is compromised by the use of cheaper materials and processes - Buy a pair of cheap mics and see how well matched they are. Buy an expensive mic, than buy another of the same model 10 years later and test them for matching. While you are at it, check whether the cheap mic you got 10 years ago is even still being made. That's not a comprehensive list, and you can pick holes in any of those, but you surely get the general idea. -- Anahata --/-- http://www.treewind.co.uk +44 (0)1638 720444 |
#95
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
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. Oh? - That's news to me. At the time, the 00028 C was the most touted American made classical guitar. I was not aware of any, "more classical" guitars made unless they came from Spain or the Andelusian Mountains. Of course, it had to be nylon strung. To string it with steel would have ruined it. Its neck was not steel braced. Also, my classical guitar teacher was perfectly happy with my 0018 C. |
#96
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
rakmanenuff wrote:
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 Don't assume that. But you might consider that he may be 1.66 times more experienced, depending on what he did for a living. |
#97
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
Mike Rivers wrote:
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. Hummm.....You have mentioned that a couple of times now. I have been to a guitar shop neer Geary and Thirteenth streets in San Francisco, where the guy has several hundred acoustical guitars from all over the world, and as far as I can tell, they are all built exactly like my 0018C. Out of different woods, and slightly different shapes perhaps, but I couldn't specifically tell why any one of them, including the Martins, wouldn't qualify as "classical guitars". |
#98
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
Richard Kuschel wrote:
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. My 0018C has a 2" wide at the nut neck. AFAIK, this is pretty standard. Perhaps you are thinking of some Martin designations that have been made in the intervening years? Both the 00028C, and the 0018C were definitely considered to be classical guitars back in the late 60's. |
#99
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
Ty Ford wrote:
On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 20:31:33 -0500, mcp6453 wrote (in article ): 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. While I do have experience with some pretty expensive mics and preamp, $9000 for a mic is a bit over the top. I don't think they'll make recordings that are X times better than my $2000 mikes. Some of the 1930-1940 Martin guitars were selling in the $25,000-$35,000 range at a guitar show a couple of years ago. They sounded very nice, but the multiples don't add up. Regards, Ty Ford Yes. When it comes to collectors items, all bets are off. I was talking about sound quality per dollar, and the price-performance curve. Collectors are in a class by themselves...... |
#100
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
Ty Ford wrote:
On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 18:48:56 -0500, Bill Graham wrote (in article ) : 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. Then please get back to us after you have used a Schoeps. Regards, Ty Ford Well, if you send me one, I will be glad to try it out. Do they make a clip-on the rim of the bell model for my horn? |
#101
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
Cyberserf wrote:
On Dec 10, 9:55 pm, "Bill Graham" wrote: Cyberserf wrote: On Dec 10, 2:28 am, "Bill Graham" wrote: hank alrich 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). Bill knows less about guitars than he does about mics, and in a professional audio forum context, he don't know **** about mics. I played the classical guitar for several years....I know that Andre Segovia had several 18th century harpsichords smashed up to get the wood for his guitar, but I bet he never took a double blind test either. I have been working with musicians for a long time now, and I know the way they think. They are so impressionable that they will deny physics to cling to their beliefs. Ask a trumpet player about, "projection" sometime. And about "cryogenic treatment" also. (if you want to get a good laugh) How much would you pay for a Sergovia? Only $500? You're saying that a Martin HD28 (above $500) is not much better than a Yamaha F310 (below $500)...might you see where that might stretch the credulity of anyone who knows anything about guitars? In my neck of the woods $500 is where quality STARTS in guitars...I have worked on and played literally thousands of guitars in all sorts of price ranges over 30 years as a stringed instrument technician...there are very few sub $500 guitars built today that I would recommend to anyone...Instruments below $500 get you laminated woods (tops/back and sides), inferior components, bad designs and sloppy build quality...you don't even have to play them to feel how precarious they are. Perhaps you meant to write $5000...in which case I would still disagree, though much less vehemently. I have also worked with a number of musicians...all have been very well informed and passionate about their sound...rather than impressionable, I would describe them as bull-headed and driven. Funny how perceptions can be so divergent. -CS $500 is where quality starts, but I am speaking of where good sound starts. Can you really tell the difference in sound of a $500 guitar over a $5000 one? I mean in a really good double blind test, where someone else was playing the music behind a curtain? I am a musician myself. I love good quality instruments. If I had the money, I would probably buy myself a horn that cost over $5000. But, I also know that it probably would really not sound any better than several I have that cost under $1000 when I bought them several years ago. IOW, I am just as subseptable to the old placebo effect as is anyone else. The only difference is, I know about the effect, and many musicians do not. I love good guitars too. My Martin is a good example. It only cost me a couple of hundred dollars when I bought it back in the 70's. Today, it is worth several thousand dollars. But it is still the same guitar! And, it doesn't sound any better than it did when I first bought it! But when my guitar playing friends come over to my place and play it, they say, Oh, my! Does this guitar sound good! And, it really does sound good. But in my heart, I know that there are $500 instruments on the market that would sound just as good. And, as audio engineering advances, there are factories that could produce better sounding guitars using modern plastics and carefully engineered shapes, coupled with good miking and fancy digital effects that C.F.Martin never thought possible. IOW, we are fast entering a whole different age in instrument design, and like with film cameras, we will never be able to look back. Bill, You may have a point about the future direction of instruments, though I've played Ovations and other carbon composite guitars...they leave me cold. The point about quality is, as you know, a good bit of the "sound" comes from the player...and good quality instruments are easier to play, thus, they sound better when played by a larger variety of artists. Keep in mind, your $200 Martin (whatever model) would be sold new today for $1,200+...well above the $500 mark anyway...you are being offered more due to its vintage status (that's the hype)...it is the same guitar, but $500 today does not buy you what it did yesterday. As I said...had you put the bar higher (say at 3K), I would have had very little issue with the statement, when they all play and sound good, they all play and sound good. My point is simply that many sub-$500 instruments today verge on the unplayable...and yes, in many cases, you can hear the difference, but in all cases, as a player, you can feel them. Regards, CS OK. I'll go to $3000. After all, this is 2010. Money is getting more and more worthless all the time. (and my conservative friends say, "You ain't seen nothin' yet") So make my first figure $3000, and not $500. But I claim that paying more than that for a guitar is wasting your money on brand names, fancy inlay work around the sound hole, gold plated tuning pegs, exotic hardwoods, etc. You can probably pay $9000 for a guitar, but you won't get 3X better sound than you get for $3000. I know that I can pay $9000 for a flugelhorn, but ZI won't get 6X better sound from it than I can get from my $1500 Getzen. Which doesn't mean that I wouldn't buy one if I had the money. I am just as subseptable to the placebo effect as anyone else. |
#102
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
timewarp2008 wrote:
Close-miking the throat of a trumpet bell, with the mic feeding an effects stompbox and an instrument combo amp, what would such a comparison teach anyone? Whose teaching? I am playing tunes from the 30's - 50's in a senior citizens dance band, and playing around in my own living room with a bunch of friends. Teachers are 1. Not retired 75 year olds. And 2. supposed to be working, and not pursuing a hobby. At 75, I am having fun with music, man! |
#103
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
geoff 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. 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. Where trhis analogy comes apart is that the value in a guitar is not entirely the amount or quality of sound. Performance factors are a large part of it too, and are incredibly variable. geoff I agree with that. If you are performing before a bunch of teen agers, then maybe you will become more popular if you smash up all your instruments on stage at the end of your performance. And, if that were the case, I would expect you to purchase your equipment accordingly...:^) |
#104
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
anahata wrote:
On Thu, 09 Dec 2010 23:13:59 -0800, Bill Graham wrote: Well, perhaps you should learn something about double blind tests. Most subscribers to this group know a LOT about DBTs and you won't win many friends though being so patronising. 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. Never mind the listeners behind the curtain, ask the PLAYER which guitar he prefers. That is one clue to the difference between mics - a good audio engineer might be able to get a good guitar sound with a cheap mic but it's likely to be much harder work (time = money) fiddling with mic position, room acoustics and (as a last resort) EQ. It's reasonable question to ask why a $9000 mic costs so much more than a $9 mic. Here are some clues: - Find out who did the research work designing the mic (as oppposed to copying someone else's design). - Look at the pay and working conditions of the people employed to make the mics. - Go to the factory and see how much testing they do at every stage of manufacture. And to what tolerances they measure everything. - Find out how much the design for optimum performance is compromised by the use of cheaper materials and processes - Buy a pair of cheap mics and see how well matched they are. Buy an expensive mic, than buy another of the same model 10 years later and test them for matching. While you are at it, check whether the cheap mic you got 10 years ago is even still being made. That's not a comprehensive list, and you can pick holes in any of those, but you surely get the general idea. Well, you got me up to about $2000, but you are still a long ways away from $9000. (Not strictly true, but I hope you get the general idea). |
#105
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
On 12/12/2010 3:20 PM, Cyberserf wrote:
I've played Ovations and other carbon composite guitars...they leave me cold. The point about quality is, as you know, a good bit of the "sound" comes from the player...and good quality instruments are easier to play, thus, they sound better when played by a larger variety of artists. You can no longer generalize the sound of a guitar, and that's why there are so many "natural" guitar sounds. You wouldn't use a fine classical guitar to play rockabilly. You wouldn't use a Telecaster to play mellow jazz. You wouldn't use an Ovation to play in a back porch old time string band. And, apropos of this discussion, you can't turn an Ovation into Martin D-28 by choosing the right mic. I really get annoyed when I hear a solo or near-solo singer/songwriter where that buzzy no midrange plugged-in acoustic guitar is the up front instrument. I wonder WHY IN THE HECK IS HE PLAYING THAT CRUMMY SOUNDING GUITAR!!!???? Yes, that same guitar strummed in the right way fits right in with a certain kind of band, giving the IMPRESSION that someone is playing an acoustic guitar but that it doesn't distract the listener. And, yes, that guitar will sound about the same regardless of what mic is put on it, if it's not simply plugged in with no mic. It's not just the guitar and the mic any more, it's the music and the production. -- "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 |
#106
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 03:21:28 -0800, Bill Graham wrote:
I am playing tunes from the 30's - 50's in a senior citizens dance band, and playing around in my own living room with a bunch of friends. So there are some applications that can benefit from a $9000 mic, but yours certainly isn't one of them. -- Anahata --/-- http://www.treewind.co.uk +44 (0)1638 720444 |
#107
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
In article ,
"Bill Graham" wrote: Richard Kuschel wrote: 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. My 0018C has a 2" wide at the nut neck. AFAIK, this is pretty standard. Perhaps you are thinking of some Martin designations that have been made in the intervening years? Both the 00028C, and the 0018C were definitely considered to be classical guitars back in the late 60's. Not my recollection at all. There is a difference between a classical instrument and a guitar that uses nylon strings. There are several other aspects of construction (bracing, neck relief, etc.) that differ. For example, the nylon string Martin that Noel of Peter Paul and Mary used for years has a sound that is very different from classical guitars. -- www.jennifermartinmusic.com |
#108
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
Mike Rivers writes: snip I really get annoyed when I hear a solo or near-solo singer/songwriter where that buzzy no midrange plugged-in acoustic guitar is the up front instrument. I wonder WHY IN THE HECK IS HE PLAYING THAT CRUMMY SOUNDING GUITAR!!!???? Yes, that same guitar strummed in the right way fits right in with a certain kind of band, giving the IMPRESSION that someone is playing an acoustic guitar but that it doesn't distract the listener. And, yes, that guitar will sound about the same regardless of what mic is put on it, if it's not simply plugged in with no mic. RIght, but that's the only sound a lot of folks really recognize as an "acoustic guitar" sound, because their musical frames of reference are quite narrow. They've never listened to anything except close mic multitrack overdubbed rock style music, even if they call it country. I don't understand how it can be country if it's nothing but a straight 4 time signature, no shuffle, no swing, no waltz and sounds like the bad rockabilly I tuned out years ago. But, that's another subject grin. It's not just the guitar and the mic any more, it's the music and the production. Right, but you have to understand music, and production, and have a wider frame of reference than a lot of the folks out there have today. Which is why, in recent thread on panning I suggested that the original poster go listen to some large ensembles play sans sound reinforcement. THere are certain principles that work, just because they work. Richard webb, replace anything before at with elspider ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com |
#109
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 14:31:13 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote
(in article ): Rick Ruskin wrote: Some friends brought over the Curtis Technology AL-2 Tube mic system for me to check out about 10 years ago. They were AWFUL! List on those was $3000.00 for a stereo pair. Those had no high end response to speak of, yeah. And the sad part is that if the engineers had done the math before they selected the diaphragm material they did, they should have been able to predict that. So maybe that's what they were aiming for... or maybe they made a mistake. --scott Curtis Technology as in the UK company that does DSP work? 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 |
#110
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
On Dec 13, 12:38*pm, Mike Rivers wrote:
You wouldn't use a Telecaster to play mellow jazz. Ted Greene used a Tele to play mellow jazz |
#111
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
On Dec 13, 6:38*am, Mike Rivers wrote:
You wouldn't use a Telecaster to play mellow jazz. Come to St. Louis sometime, and I'll introduce you to Steve Schenkel, who does exactly that -- wonderfully. I've never figured out how. Peace, Paul |
#113
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
On 12/13/2010 1:42 PM, rakmanenuff wrote:
Ted Greene used a Tele to play mellow jazz But would YOU? I'd rather play something like a Super 400 if I had one. -- "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 |
#114
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
On 12/13/2010 1:51 PM, PStamler wrote:
Come to St. Louis sometime, and I'll introduce you to Steve Schenkel, who does exactly that -- wonderfully. I've never figured out how. OK, I guess that was a bad example, or an example of the fact that if you know what you want, you can probably do it with the tools you have at hand. I've recorded a lot of things with mics that cost less than $500, too. -- "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 |
#115
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
On Dec 13, 3:52*am, "Bill Graham" wrote:
Richard Kuschel wrote: 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'sliste.... 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. My 0018C has a 2" wide at the nut neck. AFAIK, this is pretty standard. Perhaps you are thinking of some Martin designations that have been made in the intervening years? Both the 00028C, and the 0018C were definitely considered to be classical guitars back in the late 60's. Actually the necks of the N10/N20 Martins may have been slightly wider. It's been 40 years since I touched one. The body shape and fan bracing was "classical" . Neither a 00 or 000 has the traditional classical body style or dimensions The most famous of the Classical N series (though not played that way) is Willie Nelson's N20 "Trigger". That guitar belongs in the Smithsonian. |
#116
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
Bill Graham wrote:
I agree with that. If you are performing before a bunch of teen agers, then maybe you will become more popular if you smash up all your instruments on stage at the end of your performance. And, if that were the case, I would expect you to purchase your equipment accordingly...:^) I was referring to performance factor regarding the actually playing and response of he instrument in many different parameters. geoff |
#117
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
Mike Rivers wrote:
On 12/12/2010 3:20 PM, Cyberserf wrote: I've played Ovations and other carbon composite guitars...they leave me cold. The point about quality is, as you know, a good bit of the "sound" comes from the player...and good quality instruments are easier to play, thus, they sound better when played by a larger variety of artists. You can no longer generalize the sound of a guitar, and that's why there are so many "natural" guitar sounds. You wouldn't use a fine classical guitar to play rockabilly. You wouldn't use a Telecaster to play mellow jazz. You wouldn't use an Ovation to play in a back porch old time string band. And, apropos of this discussion, you can't turn an Ovation into Martin D-28 by choosing the right mic. I really get annoyed when I hear a solo or near-solo singer/songwriter where that buzzy no midrange plugged-in acoustic guitar is the up front instrument. I wonder WHY IN THE HECK IS HE PLAYING THAT CRUMMY SOUNDING GUITAR!!!???? Yes, that same guitar strummed in the right way fits right in with a certain kind of band, giving the IMPRESSION that someone is playing an acoustic guitar but that it doesn't distract the listener. And, yes, that guitar will sound about the same regardless of what mic is put on it, if it's not simply plugged in with no mic. It's not just the guitar and the mic any more, it's the music and the production. I don't dispute anything you say. All I'm suggesting is that the application of some science to the effort can't hurt. Can't you envision the study, with modern scientific instruments of the sounds that eminate from the various guitars that exist in the world today, and the engineered building of an instrument, using any modern or classical material available, that can reproduce any and/or all of these sounds more cheaply or easily or both, than how they are created now? IOW, build a better guitar by throwing away any pre-conceived notions, and by approaching the problem from a purely scientific respective by first identifying the sound you want, and then producing it in the most economical way. And, in any case, why would this be wrong? I mean, if someone wants to do it, well, why not? Sure, you may not want to play it when its done. It might not have all that pretty rosewood on the back, or that ebony fretboard that you are so fond of caressing with your left hand. But it might sound just like a $5000 guitar and only cost $1000, and that's something! |
#118
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
anahata wrote:
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 03:21:28 -0800, Bill Graham wrote: I am playing tunes from the 30's - 50's in a senior citizens dance band, and playing around in my own living room with a bunch of friends. So there are some applications that can benefit from a $9000 mic, but yours certainly isn't one of them. That's for sure. I would have many other ways to spend 9 big ones. I think I would have Monette build me a four valve flugelhorn.....:^) |
#119
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 16:49:34 -0800, "Bill Graham"
wrote: Mike Rivers wrote: On 12/12/2010 3:20 PM, Cyberserf wrote: I've played Ovations and other carbon composite guitars...they leave me cold. The point about quality is, as you know, a good bit of the "sound" comes from the player...and good quality instruments are easier to play, thus, they sound better when played by a larger variety of artists. You can no longer generalize the sound of a guitar, and that's why there are so many "natural" guitar sounds. You wouldn't use a fine classical guitar to play rockabilly. You wouldn't use a Telecaster to play mellow jazz. You wouldn't use an Ovation to play in a back porch old time string band. And, apropos of this discussion, you can't turn an Ovation into Martin D-28 by choosing the right mic. I really get annoyed when I hear a solo or near-solo singer/songwriter where that buzzy no midrange plugged-in acoustic guitar is the up front instrument. I wonder WHY IN THE HECK IS HE PLAYING THAT CRUMMY SOUNDING GUITAR!!!???? Yes, that same guitar strummed in the right way fits right in with a certain kind of band, giving the IMPRESSION that someone is playing an acoustic guitar but that it doesn't distract the listener. And, yes, that guitar will sound about the same regardless of what mic is put on it, if it's not simply plugged in with no mic. It's not just the guitar and the mic any more, it's the music and the production. I don't dispute anything you say. All I'm suggesting is that the application of some science to the effort can't hurt. Can't you envision the study, with modern scientific instruments of the sounds that eminate from the various guitars that exist in the world today, and the engineered building of an instrument, using any modern or classical material available, that can reproduce any and/or all of these sounds more cheaply or easily or both, than how they are created now? IOW, build a better guitar by throwing away any pre-conceived notions, and by approaching the problem from a purely scientific respective by first identifying the sound you want, and then producing it in the most economical way. And, in any case, why would this be wrong? I mean, if someone wants to do it, well, why not? Sure, you may not want to play it when its done. It might not have all that pretty rosewood on the back, or that ebony fretboard that you are so fond of caressing with your left hand. But it might sound just like a $5000 guitar and only cost $1000, and that's something! Hey Bill, Nobody here is demanding or even requesting for that matter, that you spend any amount of money on anything. If you don't think expensive mics and guitars are worth their prices, then shut the **** up and don't buy either. Rick Ruskin Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA http://liondogmusic.com http://www.myspace.com/rickruskin |
#120
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
New Telefunkens
Rick Ruskin wrote:
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 16:49:34 -0800, "Bill Graham" Hey Bill, Nobody here is demanding or even requesting for that matter, that you spend any amount of money on anything. If you don't think expensive mics and guitars are worth their prices, then shut the **** up and don't buy either. Rick Ruskin Oh come on now.....You have been enjoying the discussion....Havent you? Come on now, havent you? Is that a smile I see there? |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
FA 803s telefunkens NOS 12AX7 | Marketplace |