[hank alrich]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

I hate to tell you this, but the guys at Manley and Universal Audio are
not driving around in Rolls-Royces. It's a whole lot more expensive to
make stuff in small runs, and it's a whole lot more expensive to provide
the kind of customer support that professional customers expect. That
is where the money is going.

What Scott said.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[hank alrich]

Mxsmanic wrote:

What do the executives at Nagra drive?

And you claim you're not trolling...

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

hank alrich wrote:
wrote:

snipitty doo dah

Just about anything aimed at "professional" buyers is vastly overpriced.

Disagree, strongly. I paid a lot for the Studer. It repaid many times
over. The quality of the design and build was awesome. The reliability
was outstanding, as in a single card failure between 1975 and my first
post here, when the sync card output caps began to fail.

The Schoeps cost a lot. They are worth it in terms of performance. The
Great River wasn't cheap. It earns its keep, and then some, and survives
some pretty rough treatment.

snipitty yay

Here again, while this is true very generally, it's a blurry distinction. A
Maytag washing machine can be repaired many times, even though it's just
consumer gear.

Note the name of this Usenet group. Maybe you should post to
alt.homechores.washing_machines.



I think Geddy Lee is the moderator.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...naS9EdzmtEGWcA

--
Les Cargill

[vdubreeze]

On Mar 17, 9:42*pm, (hank alrich) wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
Nevertheless, I'm sure there are people around who have paid even more for
something else and thus consider the Nagra to be "non-professional" equipment.

No one posting here who has professional audio experience and knows of
Nagra is is going to be suggesting it isn't pro gear. Which is not to
say that every model was a success.

Yes, anyone can have an opinion. Not all opinions are equally informed.

Hank, that reminds me of a great Isaac Asimov quote, one of his many,
which only requires substitution of suitable nouns in the first part
to fit the thread.

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way
through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion
that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your
knowledge.'”

[Mike Rivers]

On 3/17/2012 9:42 PM, hank alrich wrote:

I paid a lot for the Studer. It repaid many times
over. The quality of the design and build was awesome. The reliability
was outstanding, as in a single card failure between 1975 and my first
post here, when the sync card output caps began to fail.

I had a pretty good track record with my TASCAM 80-8. I even
dropped it once, loading it into the trunk of the car, and
the heads didn't even get out of alignment. It easily paid
for itself. But when I moved on to a 2" 16 track Ampex
MM-1100, I started getting better gigs. I was no longer
getting "Oh, OK, well, no thanks" when someone called for a
session and asked what kind of recorder I had. It paid for
itself, too.

Same with microphones, even whe I was using the TASCAM. I
had U87s and C451s, and Beyer M260s when other TASCAM
studios had their PA mics. That got me some business that
might have gone elsewhere.




--
"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

[Mxsmanic]

hank alrich writes:

Disagree, strongly. I paid a lot for the Studer. It repaid many times
over.

It may have paid for itself, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't overpriced.
You'd have to compare the manufacturing cost to the sale price to determine
that.

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Rivers writes:

I had a pretty good track record with my TASCAM 80-8. I even
dropped it once, loading it into the trunk of the car, and
the heads didn't even get out of alignment. It easily paid
for itself. But when I moved on to a 2" 16 track Ampex
MM-1100, I started getting better gigs. I was no longer
getting "Oh, OK, well, no thanks" when someone called for a
session and asked what kind of recorder I had. It paid for
itself, too.

That helps prove my point. Clients were interested in how much money you had
spent, not in how good you might be at your work.

For the same reason, wedding photographers and product and fashion
photographers used Hasselblads for years. The 6x6 format was far more than
newlyweds or magazines needed to get superb photos, but the snob appeal of the
expensive gear was more important than the quality of the work.

Same with microphones, even whe I was using the TASCAM. I
had U87s and C451s, and Beyer M260s when other TASCAM
studios had their PA mics. That got me some business that
might have gone elsewhere.

But did it make a difference in the results?

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Rivers writes:

Sometimes yes, sometimes no, sometimes we don't care. But
clients (a "professional" is one who has clients -
remember??) sometimes judge the level of professionalism by
what they see.

In which case, a business suit might be more important than any piece of audio
gear.

For example, you would be judged more
professional by your client (and anyone else watching you
set up) if you carried your gear in well fitted cases in
good condition than if you carried it in in the cardboard
box it was shipped to you in, or a carton you got from the
grocery store. Both serve the purpose equally well, but the
nice cases make a better impression that "this is a
professional that I hired."

But appearances and results are different. Is appearance a more important
criterion of professionalism just because superficial clients pay more
attention to it, or is it really the result that counts?

This is a different story. Those people don't want to pay
for professional work so they don't really count in this
discussion.

A lot of people don't want to pay for professional work, and not just the ones
trying to obtain things illegally. And some people pay for bootlegs, despite
their generally poor quality.

And now that I'm thinking about it, one characteristic that
SOMETIMES differentiates what I'd call professional
equipment is simplicity of operation to reduce the
possibility of operator error. It's easier to know that you
forgot to turn on phantom power if there's no red light on
the front panel or a switch handle in the ON position than
if you have to go into a menu to do it and the only
indication you have that it's on is perhaps a small icon on
a small and cluttered display.

I read one review that said that the fewer on-screen menus you have to wade
through and the greater the number of buttons and switches, the more
professional the equipment is. That would correlate with my own experience.

I won't argue with that, but there's a wider range of
consumer gear today than there ever was (and still is) of
pro gear. I happen to think that the Zoom H4n feels like a
pretty solid piece of gear.

I am surprised by its weight. It makes me wonder what's inside. But perhaps
that is characteristic of hand-held audio recorders (?). This is the only one
I have direct experience with.

My Mackie Onyx mixers for the most part sound better than
the Soundcraft 600 that I paid $7500 for more than 20 years
ago. But the Soundcraft is still what's in my studio for a
few reasons, the primary reason being that it's a real
recording console with tape returns, subgroup outputs,
higher maximum output level (= more headroom), and more gain
in the preamps. It's getting kind of old and I'd like to
replace it, but I'm no longer doing several $5,000 projects
a year. I simply can't justify the replacement cost
(probably in the $10,000-15,000 range today) for what's
turned into a hobby that occasionally provides some income -
mostly from writing and using the gear as laboratory
equipment rather than recording music.

Would replacing it actually allow you to get better results, or would it
simply be nice to have a replacement?

I think you're getting it. We really shouldn't be using
labels for gear like "professional" and "consumer."

I agree. People who still make the distinction have issues.

High technology is the great democratizer. Eventually the technology reaches a
point where anyone can get top quality for everything. And when that happens,
the only way to distinguish between a consumer and a pro is from the results
that they obtain. Unfortunately, that puts a lot of incompetent "pros" out of
business, since they can no longer hide behind expensive equipment.

I see some $25,000 turntables, and $30.000 amplifiers
and speakers at CES. Are they professional because of the
cost or the build quality? Not necessarily.

I bet the people who buy with them would argue vigorously with that, although
I agree with you.

But there are many professional mastering engineers who are
using these audiophile (which is what we call a consumer
with too much money) speakers and amplifiers in their
studios, not because they sound like what consumers listen
on (nope, that'd be MP3 players and earbuds) but because
they really sound more accurate than the Genelecs and Focals
that are sold through professional channels, presumably to
professionals, On the other hand, you don't see audiophiles
buying Genelecs, though Alan Sides has been at the last
couple of CESs with his big Ocean Way monitors and has been
astounded by the number of orders he's taken for them there
- from audiophiles.

It's hard for me to relate because I don't recognize these brands, but I think
I see your point.

There's some truth to that, but if you never get any better,
then you might as well stick with consumer equipment. While
experienced engineers have demonstrated that they can use an
SM57 for everything on a session and have it sound fine,
there comes a point where the equipment WILL stand in your
way.

In the days when I had money, I did buy the very best quality I could get. But
I did it because I know that if I had the best equipment, any problem with the
results I got could only be my own fault--I could not blame the tools,
especially since I had spent more than some pros. Unfortunately, I discovered
that the results were still mediocre in many cases ... only because I was
incompetent. So it was sort of good and bad: Good to know that the equipment
was not holding me back, but humbling to realize that I just lacked the skills
to get the most out of really good equipment.

There's a good example right here in this discussion,
that of using a handheld recorder for gathering quiet nature
sounds. A review reported that at full gain, it was a little
noisy.

I'll try it sometime, although the city in which I live is so noisy that I
don't think I'd ever have a situation in which I'd set the gain to its
maximum. Maybe I can try recording in a park or something.

I tried using it to detect sleep apnea, believe it or not. I just let it run
while I slept. When I loaded up the resulting recording, I heard nothing in
the background, but by cranking it way, way up, I was finally able to hear my
own breathing, which surprised me, as I can't hear that when I'm actually
awake. There were some deep rumbling sounds from a subway far below the
building that were much louder than the breathing noises, even though these
subway sounds are almost impossible to hear in real life. So I guess the H4n
did pretty well. But it's probably still a noisy environment compared to some,
and I've never used any other recorders.

NO, NO, NO, NO . . . the difference between a pro and a
non-pro is that the pro will recognize what he needs and get
it. He won't necessarily buy it, he'll rent it.

Only if he can afford to buy or rent.

Pros regularly make do with what they have. That's why most Hollywood films
are shot with a single camera, even though multiple cameras would be much
closer to ideal.

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Rivers writes:

We in this business don't get exposed to real professional
software.

There's no such thing, when it comes to software for desktop computers. It's
all garbage.

Pro Tools, on the other hand, is full of annoyances, bugs,
and is continuously updated because it's never been
finished. But to some, it's the best they can get so they
put up with it.

Pro Tools is garbage. I can say that without having used it because all
desktop software is garbage.

If hardware had the same problems as software, pros would be marching on the
headquarters of the equipment manufacturers with their lawyers, demanding
compensation for defective merchandise. But for some reason, end users of
desktop software simply shrug their shoulders and eat their losses when
defective software causes them to lose time and money. They've been
conditioned to accept any level of mediocrity at any price, and vendors take
full advantage of that.

Does it make me any more or less professional because I use
a Mackie HDR24/95 hard disk recorder instead of a general
purpose computer with general purpose software to do my
multitrack recording? Mackie would like people to think that
they make professional equipment, but it's just a Celron
motherboard at heart, though a high quality industrial one,
not a Dell or HP that changes every few months when they can
find cheaper components. This product is going on 13 years
old (though discontinued 5 years or so ago) but it's still
possible to get a replacement motherboard for it from the
original manufacturer. And that's important because the
recorder uses a few things that are special about that board.

Try the same for software, and you'll see why desktop software is garbage.

[Mxsmanic]

vdubreeze writes:

But that's how it is in most fields, even where new technology doesn't
enter into it. Chef's tools, sports equipment, painting supplies,
gardening tools, etc., etc. It's how it has nearly always been and
not only does it make perfect sense why it is that way, but there's
nothing wrong with it being that way.

What's wrong with it is that it's massively dishonest and unfair, rather like
saying that someone isn't suitable for a job because his skin is too dark. In
both cases, distinctions are being made based on irrelevant criteria.

[Mxsmanic]

Luxey writes:

As Mr. Rivers said above, the clue is in hiring party, usually client.
Hiring party often rely on hype. So, they want Pro Tools and do not
care about the same or better result from Cubase, they want 24/192
eventhough can't tell it from mp3, and so on. If you are a pro you have
to have equipment that's in demand.

So you don't need skill, at least not if you're only interested in earning
money.

[Mxsmanic]

vdubreeze writes:

As the Cameron Crowe character said in the back of the car in Almost
Famous, "That explains so much..." : )

With all due respect, this is apparent by your posts and the way you
keep chasing your tail in your arguments.

Hang out on a pro audio or video endeavor and you may understand the
whole issue, although to be honest at this point I have no idea what
your point is, other than that why is some stuff so expensive.

The principles I'm discussing apply identically to every business, so it is
not necessary for me to be an expert on audio specifically. It always works
the same way.

In the same way, your post that talks about me rather than the subject at hand
also follows a universal pattern, although it is not a very flattering one.

[Mxsmanic]

hank alrich writes:

Even as you fail to grasp the extent to which on many matters pertaining
to professional audio work you have neither knowledge nor experience.

The principles I'm discussing are universally applicable, and are not specific
to audio at all.

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Rivers writes:

Not all professionals can afford to own a collection of
$2,000 microphones, but any professional who's professional
enough to price his work properly will know when one is
called for and can afford to rent one when he needs it.

What if he can't find anyone to pay that price?

[Mxsmanic]

hank alrich writes:

I consider your opinion in that regard bull****.

Your consideration is not germane to this thread.

I see it as unworthy of
further consideration. I think you have no idea what the **** you're
talking about in relation to professional audio work, but that you like
talking, a lot.

There is a direct and extremely reliable correlation between name-calling and
incompetence.

[Mxsmanic]

hank alrich writes:

This group is about pro audio. In that field you are obivously clueless.

The principles I'm discussing apply to all fields of endeavor, including pro
audio.

If you cannot discuss the topic, just don't discuss at all, which will save
time for everyone.

[Mxsmanic]

hank alrich writes:

And you claim you're not trolling...

And your posts all talk about me, rather than the topic. You lose.

[vdubreeze]

On Mar 18, 8:34*am, Mxsmanic wrote:

vdubreeze writes:
But that's how it is in most fields, even where new technology doesn't
enter into it. Chef's tools, sports equipment, painting supplies,
gardening tools, etc., etc. It's how it has nearly always been and
not only does it make perfect sense why it is that way, but there's
nothing wrong with it being that way.

What's wrong with it is that it's massively dishonest and unfair, rather like
saying that someone isn't suitable for a job because his skin is too dark. In
both cases, distinctions are being made based on irrelevant criteria.

(snip)

Pro Tools is garbage. I can say that without having used it because all
desktop software is garbage.


You wouldn't say making that statement to have any "irrelevant
criteria"?! : ) You don't have a point, yet you keep writing as if
there is one to be made.

That's only about the 20th dealkilling statement you've made, so that
anyone who calls you on it isn't calling you a name, as you're posing
to Hank, but rather is simply exhibiting their exasperation at your
inane posts. This one sums the whole thing up: If you've never used
ProTools you couldn't possibly use it in a discussion about what color
the interface is much less whether it's garbage or not. You don't
know. You don't know about any of this. I hate flaming and rarely
would even consider it, but you're begging to be put in your place.
That statement is simply inane and elicits only chortles.


Mike Rivers is being incredibly gracious in explaining many things
here, at great length and clarity. Please be grateful to have them
in the thread and read them over and over and leave it at that.

[Mxsmanic]

vdubreeze writes:

If you've never used ProTools you couldn't possibly use it in a
discussion about what color the interface is much less whether
it's garbage or not.

Yes, I can. It would have to be a one-in-a-million exception to a rule that
I've never seen broken up to now, and I know that's not the case.

All desktop software is garbage. It's just that users have never seen anything
but garbage on the desktop, so they don't realize how bad it is.

Mike Rivers is being incredibly gracious in explaining many things
here, at great length and clarity.

Maybe he's a professional. They are usually good at that, if they don't have
any issues with insecurity.

[Scott Dorsey]

Mxsmanic wrote:
Scott Dorsey writes:

And for field recorders, being able to tolerate a fall off a building is
a minimal basic requirement.

How many field recorders can survive such a fall?

Pretty much all of the professional ones. Not all that hard today now that
you can buy ruggedized hard drives for the automotive embedded computer
market.

I wouldn't feel too worried about dropping a Cantar or a Sound Devices
either. I would not expect to lose a take.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

Mxsmanic wrote:
Scott Dorsey writes:

It's a lot easier to get results with professional equipment that is
specifically designed to do a single job well than it is to get results
with consumer equipment.

But where does "consumer" stop and "professional" begin?

At the design philosophy stage. 100% of the difference is in how it is
intended to be used.

If the software were properly written, you wouldn't have that problem. But the
quality standards for software--even the fanciest "pro" software--are largely
nonexistent.

I think you'd be surprised at how carefully some of the embedded stuff is
vetted. But it's not just a matter of testing, it's a matter of it being
specifically designed to do a single thing well.

Now, mind you we have weird stuff these days, like Pro Tools which was once
designed to do a single thing well and which has now succumbed to horrible
bloat that has turned it into a tool that does everything, but not anything
particularly well. I'd claim it's a lot less professional as a result.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Steve King]

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Mike Rivers writes:

We in this business don't get exposed to real professional
software.

There's no such thing, when it comes to software for desktop computers.
It's
all garbage.

Troll!

Pro Tools, on the other hand, is full of annoyances, bugs,
and is continuously updated because it's never been
finished. But to some, it's the best they can get so they
put up with it.

Pro Tools is garbage. I can say that without having used it because all
desktop software is garbage.

Troll!

If hardware had the same problems as software, pros would be marching on
the
headquarters of the equipment manufacturers with their lawyers, demanding
compensation for defective merchandise. But for some reason, end users of
desktop software simply shrug their shoulders and eat their losses when
defective software causes them to lose time and money. They've been
conditioned to accept any level of mediocrity at any price, and vendors
take
full advantage of that.

Does it make me any more or less professional because I use
a Mackie HDR24/95 hard disk recorder instead of a general
purpose computer with general purpose software to do my
multitrack recording? Mackie would like people to think that
they make professional equipment, but it's just a Celron
motherboard at heart, though a high quality industrial one,
not a Dell or HP that changes every few months when they can
find cheaper components. This product is going on 13 years
old (though discontinued 5 years or so ago) but it's still
possible to get a replacement motherboard for it from the
original manufacturer. And that's important because the
recorder uses a few things that are special about that board.

Try the same for software, and you'll see why desktop software is garbage.

What you add to the conversation is garbage.

Steve King

[vdubreeze]

On Mar 18, 10:25*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
vdubreeze writes:
If you've never used ProTools you couldn't possibly use it in a
discussion about what color the interface is much less whether
it's garbage or not.

Yes, I can.


No, you can't.

It would have to be a one-in-a-million exception to a rule that
I've never seen broken up to now, and I know that's not the case.

Each section of that sentence makes no sense by itself, and all
together it might be the most incomprehensible explanation for
anything I've ever seen anywhere.

[Steve King]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
On 3/17/2012 3:41 PM, vdubreeze wrote:

But that's how it is in most fields, even where new technology doesn't
enter into it. Chef's tools

Great example. Not even famous chefs use the kind of knives that
Wiliams-Sonoma sells. They buy sturdy utilitarian knives, usually
stainless steel, from restaurant supply stores, and recommend that home
cooks do the same.

I think this is a generality that doesn't hold up. My wife works at a Sur
La Table store, somewhat like Williams-Sonoma. They carry an extensive
inventory of knives. Their customers for their pricier knives are
predominently professional chefs. The sales people there are also trained
to recommend the right knife for the job and for the user, which is often a
utilitarian stainless steel knife.

And a couple of winters back when we had about 30 inches of snow over a
weekend, I walked over to Home Depot to try to find a couple of day
workers to shovel my driveway. The two guys who came back with me didn't
even have snow shovels - they used mine. 2-1/2 hours later, my 160 foot
driveway was clear and they went away happy to have done a good job for
$60 each. Professionals? They were, in my eyes.

Now that's useful information. I hadn't thought about my local Home Depot
as a hiring source for day workers for the yard work and heavier labor that
I no longer want to do. I'll have to check it out.

Steve KIng

[Mxsmanic]

Steve King writes:

Their customers for their pricier knives are predominently
professional chefs.

There is a tendency for anyone working in a specific domain to become enamored
of the tools used in that domain.

[hank alrich]

vdubreeze wrote:

On Mar 18, 10:25 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
vdubreeze writes:
If you've never used ProTools you couldn't possibly use it in a
discussion about what color the interface is much less whether
it's garbage or not.

Yes, I can.


No, you can't.

It would have to be a one-in-a-million exception to a rule that
I've never seen broken up to now, and I know that's not the case.

Each section of that sentence makes no sense by itself, and all
together it might be the most incomprehensible explanation for
anything I've ever seen anywhere.

This guy is a mjor contributor to global warming.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[hank alrich]

Mxsmanic wrote:

Steve King writes:

Their customers for their pricier knives are predominently
professional chefs.

There is a tendency for anyone working in a specific domain to become enamored
of the tools used in that domain.

Because those tools often work better than lesser tools.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[hank alrich]

Mxsmanic wrote:

vdubreeze writes:

But that's how it is in most fields, even where new technology doesn't
enter into it. Chef's tools, sports equipment, painting supplies,
gardening tools, etc., etc. It's how it has nearly always been and
not only does it make perfect sense why it is that way, but there's
nothing wrong with it being that way.

What's wrong with it is that it's massively dishonest and unfair, rather like
saying that someone isn't suitable for a job because his skin is too dark. In
both cases, distinctions are being made based on irrelevant criteria.

That's pretty ****in' funny because we haven't a troll pushing as much
irrelvant **** on this forum as you do in quite some time.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[hank alrich]

Mxsmanic wrote:

hank alrich writes:

Even as you fail to grasp the extent to which on many matters pertaining
to professional audio work you have neither knowledge nor experience.

The principles I'm discussing are universally applicable, and are not specific
to audio at all.

You are full enough of yourself to constitute a whole new species of
professional bull****ter. The principles you invoke are your opinion.
Glad you like it.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[hank alrich]

Mxsmanic wrote:

hank alrich writes:

This group is about pro audio. In that field you are obivously clueless.

The principles I'm discussing apply to all fields of endeavor, including pro
audio.

If you cannot discuss the topic, just don't discuss at all, which will save
time for everyone.

You can't discuss pro audio recording and production. That's what we
mostly discuss here.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[hank alrich]

Mxsmanic wrote:

Mike Rivers writes:

I had a pretty good track record with my TASCAM 80-8. I even
dropped it once, loading it into the trunk of the car, and
the heads didn't even get out of alignment. It easily paid
for itself. But when I moved on to a 2" 16 track Ampex
MM-1100, I started getting better gigs. I was no longer
getting "Oh, OK, well, no thanks" when someone called for a
session and asked what kind of recorder I had. It paid for
itself, too.

That helps prove my point. Clients were interested in how much money you had
spent, not in how good you might be at your work.

No, clients knew the difference between the Tascam and the Ampex, even
as most posters here know the difference. That difference is not subtle.

For the same reason, wedding photographers and product and fashion
photographers used Hasselblads for years. The 6x6 format was far more than
newlyweds or magazines needed to get superb photos, but the snob appeal of the
expensive gear was more important than the quality of the work.

Same with microphones, even whe I was using the TASCAM. I
had U87s and C451s, and Beyer M260s when other TASCAM
studios had their PA mics. That got me some business that
might have gone elsewhere.

But did it make a difference in the results?

Why do you not already know the answer to that question? Maybe because
you've not used the tools to do the work.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[Scott Dorsey]

Mike Rivers wrote:
On 3/17/2012 3:41 PM, vdubreeze wrote:

But that's how it is in most fields, even where new technology doesn't
enter into it. Chef's tools

Great example. Not even famous chefs use the kind of knives
that Wiliams-Sonoma sells. They buy sturdy utilitarian
knives, usually stainless steel, from restaurant supply
stores, and recommend that home cooks do the same.

Williams-Sonoma is like the food equivalent of Sound By Singer. They sell
to the "high end audiophile" food industry, which is almost completely
disjoint from the professional food industry.

Sometimes it sounds to me like the original poster is confusing the
"high end audio" and "professional audio" worlds.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

hank alrich wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:

What do the executives at Nagra drive?

And you claim you're not trolling...

Nagra is actually a kind of weird example because I suspect their pro
audio division actually loses money. I suspect they keep it mostly for
the prestige. These days, Nagra makes a lot more money on video encryption
technology than anything else.

Mind you, a lot of companies are like this. For years, Sony kept a high
end home division that sold handmade products that never left Japan. It
was kept mostly to be used as a reward for good employees to take a tour
there.
--scott

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

[Mike Rivers]

On 3/18/2012 8:06 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:

It may have paid for itself, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't overpriced.
You'd have to compare the manufacturing cost to the sale price to determine
that.

You need to factor in the value to the user too. You seem to
want to put a formula to everything. Real life doesn't work
out that way. A Mercedes-Benz probably doesn't cost much
more to manufacture than a Ford Fusion so I guess it's
overpriced, too. That doesn't seem to hurt sales, or
customer satisfaction.



--
"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

[david gourley[_2_]]

(hank alrich) said...news:1kh4but.1ax2ka11at99z7N%
:

Mxsmanic wrote:

What do the executives at Nagra drive?

And you claim you're not trolling...


I put him in my killfile weeks ago because I thought
he was a troll.

You and others have the patience of Job.


david

[Mxsmanic]

hank alrich writes:

No, clients knew the difference between the Tascam and the Ampex, even
as most posters here know the difference. That difference is not subtle.

The proof is in the result, not the equipment inventory. How do they know
until they hear the result? Don't they check previous results first?

Why do you not already know the answer to that question? Maybe because
you've not used the tools to do the work.

Maybe because there's a lot of variation in the talent and skill of the people
using the equipment.

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Rivers writes:

You need to factor in the value to the user too. You seem to
want to put a formula to everything. Real life doesn't work
out that way.

It works pretty well for business.

A Mercedes-Benz probably doesn't cost much
more to manufacture than a Ford Fusion so I guess it's
overpriced, too.

Yes.

That doesn't seem to hurt sales, or customer satisfaction.

Some people buy a car _because_ it is expensive, so naturally a Mercedes
pleases them more than a Ford.

[Mxsmanic]

hank alrich writes:

Because those tools often work better than lesser tools.

All else being equal, yes, but all else is rarely equal.

[Mxsmanic]

Scott Dorsey writes:

Sometimes it sounds to me like the original poster is confusing the
"high end audio" and "professional audio" worlds.

What's the distinction between the two?

[Mike Rivers]

On 3/18/2012 8:08 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:

That helps prove my point. Clients were interested in how much money you had
spent, not in how good you might be at your work.

Where do you get that idea? They were interested in the
quality of equipment that I had, not how much money I spent.
Though they might equate the quality my equipment with how
much THEY'LL have to spend to record with me.

For the same reason, wedding photographers and product and fashion
photographers used Hasselblads for years. The 6x6 format was far more than
newlyweds or magazines needed to get superb photos, but the snob appeal of the
expensive gear was more important than the quality of the work.

Right. And today they use digital cameras, but they use
digital Nikon and Cannon SLRs, not Coolpix or SureShot
models. Those cheaper models just don't instill the
confidence that a professional need in order to charge his
rates for his services. If the wedding couple is willing to
let Cousin Vinnie take their pictures, they get what he gets.

Same with microphones, even whe I was using the TASCAM. I
had U87s and C451s, and Beyer M260s when other TASCAM
studios had their PA mics. That got me some business that
might have gone elsewhere.

But did it make a difference in the results?

I'd like to think so. I still use those mics today and I'm
happy with the results. I have a couple of less expensive
new mics, but I don't find them to be as versatile as my old
standbys. They used just make mics. Today they make vocal
mics and drum mics and guitar mics and they're not always
good for anything else.



--
"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