Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
James Price[_5_] James Price[_5_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 110
Default Recording with Measurement Mics

If the goal of a live recording is to record the instruments as faithfully as possible to the source audio, wouldn't a measurement mic with a flat response be preferred over a mic with a response that's not flat?

For example, if I wanted to record a guitar playing through a 1x12 cab at a reasonable volume, wouldn't a flat response mic be preferred if the goal were to record the sound coming out of the cab as accurately as possible?
  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Recording with Measurement Mics

James Price wrote:
If the goal of a live recording is to record the instruments as faithfully as possible to the source audio, wouldn't a measurement mic with a flat response be preferred over a mic with a response that's not flat?


1. Usually that isn't the goal at all.

2. When that IS the goal often a measurement mike is a good choice.

3. Because measurement mikes are flat in all directions and perfectly
omnidirectional, spotmiking anything becomes problematic and the
possible stereo miking configurations are limited.

For example, if I wanted to record a guitar playing through a 1x12 cab at a reasonable volume, wouldn't a flat response mic be preferred if the goal were to record the sound coming out of the cab as accurately as possible?


Try it, you may find that you likely don't actually like it, and that some
of the sound you are familiar with on recordings is actually a consequence
of breakup problems with the SM-57.

A measurement mike will record the sound an inch away from the cabinet as
accurately as possible, but you don't normally listen to guitar amps an inch
away from the cabinet. When you pull back, because of the wide pattern, you
get a lot more room effects than you would if you'd pulled back with a
cardioid mike.

Still, try it, you might like it.

In general, though, the effect of moving a microphone half an inch across
the cone of a guitar amp is more dramatic than the effect of different
microphones.

However, measurement microphones and microphones derived from measurement
designs like the Josephson 617 can be very good choices for area miking in
good rooms. A lot of classical folks swear by them.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
James Price[_5_] James Price[_5_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 110
Default Recording with Measurement Mics

On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 12:51:33 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
James Price wrote:
If the goal of a live recording is to record the instruments as faithfully as possible to the source audio, wouldn't a measurement mic with a flat response be preferred over a mic with a response that's not flat?


1. Usually that isn't the goal at all.

2. When that IS the goal often a measurement mike is a good choice.

3. Because measurement mikes are flat in all directions and perfectly
omnidirectional, spotmiking anything becomes problematic and the
possible stereo miking configurations are limited.

For example, if I wanted to record a guitar playing through a 1x12 cab at a reasonable volume, wouldn't a flat response mic be preferred if the goal were to record the sound coming out of the cab as accurately as possible?


Try it, you may find that you likely don't actually like it, and that some
of the sound you are familiar with on recordings is actually a consequence
of breakup problems with the SM-57.

A measurement mike will record the sound an inch away from the cabinet as
accurately as possible, but you don't normally listen to guitar amps an inch
away from the cabinet. When you pull back, because of the wide pattern, you
get a lot more room effects than you would if you'd pulled back with a
cardioid mike.

Still, try it, you might like it.

In general, though, the effect of moving a microphone half an inch across
the cone of a guitar amp is more dramatic than the effect of different
microphones.


When recording a cab with a measurement mic, how much difference does the
position (rather than distance) across the cone make, or does it
really matter since it's omnidirectional?
  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Recording with Measurement Mics

James Price wrote:
When recording a cab with a measurement mic, how much difference does the
position (rather than distance) across the cone make, or does it
really matter since it's omnidirectional?


A tremendous, tremendous amount. The microphone is omnidirectional, but the
speaker isn't.

Even more interesting than the guitar amp is the violin. Get in one direction
and it's all string noise, move a few inches away and it's all from the body.
And that doesn't just go for close miking.... even many feet away the sound
coming out is very different in different directions.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #5   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers[_2_] Mike Rivers[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,190
Default Recording with Measurement Mics

On 7/26/2018 12:11 PM, James Price wrote:
If the goal of a live recording is to record the instruments as faithfully as possible to the source audio, wouldn't a measurement mic with a flat response be preferred over a mic with a response that's not flat?


It depends on the instrument, but mostly it depends on the room you're
recording in. Even though the microphone records sound pressure flat,
you'll find that the sound changes as you move the mic around the room.
The principle, regardless of what mic you're using, is to listen as you
move it around, and put it where it sounds best to you.

For example, if I wanted to record a guitar playing through a 1x12 cab at a reasonable volume, wouldn't a flat response mic be preferred if the goal were to record the sound coming out of the cab as accurately as possible?


If you were recording it in an anechoic chamber, or, as a reasonable
substitute, outdoors. But then you probably wouldn't care much for that
sound, though you could manipulate it with reverbs, delays, and
equalization to get the sound you want


--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com


  #6   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
James Price[_5_] James Price[_5_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 110
Default Recording with Measurement Mics

On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 2:57:14 PM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 7/26/2018 12:11 PM, James Price wrote:
If the goal of a live recording is to record the instruments as faithfully as possible to the source audio, wouldn't a measurement mic with a flat response be preferred over a mic with a response that's not flat?


It depends on the instrument, but mostly it depends on the room you're
recording in. Even though the microphone records sound pressure flat,
you'll find that the sound changes as you move the mic around the room.


Is that a result of room reflections and resonances?
  #7   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers[_2_] Mike Rivers[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,190
Default Recording with Measurement Mics

On 7/26/2018 5:39 PM, James Price wrote:
Is that a result of room reflections and resonances?


Yes. That's what rooms do.

--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com
  #8   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
None None is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 106
Default Recording with Measurement Mics

"James Price" wrote in message
...
Even though the microphone records sound pressure flat,
you'll find that the sound changes as you move the mic around the room.

Is that a result of room reflections and resonances?


That's one reason. Another major reason is that sound sources (instrument,
speakers, singers, etc.) do not radiate sound uniformly in all directions.
To observe this effect, listen in front of the trumpet section, and then
listen behind them.

  #9   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
geoff geoff is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,812
Default Recording with Measurement Mics

On 27/07/2018 7:57 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 7/26/2018 12:11 PM, James Price wrote:
If the goal of a live recording is to record the instruments as
faithfully as possible to the source audio, wouldn't a measurement mic
with a flat response be preferred over a mic with a response that's
not flat?


It depends on the instrument, but mostly it depends on the room you're
recording in. Even though the microphone records sound pressure flat,
you'll find that the sound changes as you move the mic around the room.
The principle, regardless of what mic you're using, is to listen as you
move it around, and put it where it sounds best to you.


And hold well clear of your body, or mount and move away to test.
Because your body proximity will also affect the sound from the
room/environment.

geoff
  #10   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Phil Allison[_4_] Phil Allison[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 499
Default Recording with Measurement Mics

James Price wrote:


If the goal of a live recording is to record the instruments as
faithfully as possible to the source audio, wouldn't a measurement
mic with a flat response be preferred over a mic with a response
that's not flat?


** The main thing about a " measurement mic " is, as with rulers and scales, that they all give essentially the same results with the same objects.

Each mic has been calibrated to a standard SPL and the design is one known to eliminate anomalies in response and omni directionality. For the purposes usually intended (like pink noise testing), this is enough to make the results the same.

Sure, response is flat but this don't make them perfect.


For example, if I wanted to record a guitar playing through a 1x12 cab
at a reasonable volume, wouldn't a flat response mic be preferred if
the goal were to record the sound coming out of the cab as accurately
as possible?


** For "accurately as possible" the result needs to sound like people in the room hear it. Human ears are not "flat" and omnidirectional only at low frequencies.

Recording mics need to be placed at the correct distance to blend direct and reflected sounds in the right ratio for playback in another room which also has reflected sound. Solving this problem is generally done with a cardioid mic or mics, despite the fact they are neither flat nor omnidirectional..

OTOH, if you want to record a voice faithfully & separate from its environment - a small diaphragm condenser held at a few inches away is somewhere to start.


..... Phil


  #11   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
James Price[_5_] James Price[_5_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 110
Default Recording with Measurement Mics

On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 10:07:35 PM UTC-5, Phil Allison wrote:
** For "accurately as possible" the result needs to sound like people in the room hear it. Human ears are not "flat" and omnidirectional only at low frequencies.

Recording mics need to be placed at the correct distance to blend direct and reflected sounds in the right ratio for playback in another room which also has reflected sound. Solving this problem is generally done with a cardioid mic or mics, despite the fact they are neither flat nor omnidirectional.


Just out of curiosity, if you were listening to a close mic'd recording of a
cab in the same room that the cab was recorded in with said measurement mic,
would the distance from the listener to the monitors naturally reproduce the
appropriate room reflections / resonances necessary for the recording to
sound like the source to people in the room who heard it, thus eliminating
the need to bake said distance into the recording?
  #12   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
geoff geoff is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,812
Default Recording with Measurement Mics

On 27/07/2018 4:13 PM, James Price wrote:
On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 10:07:35 PM UTC-5, Phil Allison wrote:
** For "accurately as possible" the result needs to sound like people in the room hear it. Human ears are not "flat" and omnidirectional only at low frequencies.

Recording mics need to be placed at the correct distance to blend direct and reflected sounds in the right ratio for playback in another room which also has reflected sound. Solving this problem is generally done with a cardioid mic or mics, despite the fact they are neither flat nor omnidirectional.


Just out of curiosity, if you were listening to a close mic'd recording of a
cab in the same room that the cab was recorded in with said measurement mic,
would the distance from the listener to the monitors naturally reproduce the
appropriate room reflections / resonances necessary for the recording to
sound like the source to people in the room who heard it, thus eliminating
the need to bake said distance into the recording?



To a degree yes. But everyone in the audience will hear something
slightly different in some rooms, and very different in other rooms
rooms. Especially it there are strongly reflective surfaces.

geoff
  #13   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Trevor Trevor is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,820
Default Recording with Measurement Mics

On 27/07/2018 3:13 PM, geoff wrote:
On 27/07/2018 4:13 PM, James Price wrote:
Just out of curiosity, if you were listening to a close mic'd
recording of a
cab in the same room that the cab was recorded in with said
measurement mic,
would the distance from the listener to the monitors naturally
reproduce the
appropriate room reflections / resonances necessary for the recording to
sound like the source to people in the room who heard it, thus
eliminating
the need to bake said distance into the recording?


To a degree yes.


And to as much or more of a degree, no.


But everyone in the audience will hear something
slightly different in some rooms, and very different in other rooms
rooms. Especially it there are strongly reflective surfaces.


Right. A listener will hear a lot more directional sound with less
reflection than the measurement mic will. IME even a directional mic
located at the same position as a listener will have far more room sound
when played back, than what the listener hears live. Your hearing
perception *IS* directional after all, and the brains ability to
discriminate better than most microphones.





  #14   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Recording with Measurement Mics

James Price wrote:

Just out of curiosity, if you were listening to a close mic'd recording of =
a
cab in the same room that the cab was recorded in with said measurement mic=
,
would the distance from the listener to the monitors naturally reproduce th=
e
appropriate room reflections / resonances necessary for the recording to
sound like the source to people in the room who heard it, thus eliminating
the need to bake said distance into the recording?


No, because the ear hears very differently than the microphone, and when you
play back you're hearing both the playback room sound combined with the
room sound on the recording. So most of the time the microphone needs to
be closer than where a listener would be for the same sound.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #15   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
James Price[_5_] James Price[_5_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 110
Default Recording with Measurement Mics

On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 7:51:02 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
James Price wrote:

Just out of curiosity, if you were listening to a close mic'd recording of =
a
cab in the same room that the cab was recorded in with said measurement mic=
,
would the distance from the listener to the monitors naturally reproduce th=
e
appropriate room reflections / resonances necessary for the recording to
sound like the source to people in the room who heard it, thus eliminating
the need to bake said distance into the recording?


No, because the ear hears very differently than the microphone, and when you
play back you're hearing both the playback room sound combined with the
room sound on the recording. So most of the time the microphone needs to
be closer than where a listener would be for the same sound.


Right, and that's basically what I was asking. The idea was to eliminate the
room sound in the recording via close mic'ing so that it doesn't mingle with
the sound of the listener's room.


  #16   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Recording with Measurement Mics

James Price wrote:
On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 7:51:02 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
James Price wrote:

Just out of curiosity, if you were listening to a close mic'd recording of =
a
cab in the same room that the cab was recorded in with said measurement mic=
,
would the distance from the listener to the monitors naturally reproduce th=
e
appropriate room reflections / resonances necessary for the recording to
sound like the source to people in the room who heard it, thus eliminating
the need to bake said distance into the recording?


No, because the ear hears very differently than the microphone, and when you
play back you're hearing both the playback room sound combined with the
room sound on the recording. So most of the time the microphone needs to
be closer than where a listener would be for the same sound.


Right, and that's basically what I was asking. The idea was to eliminate the
room sound in the recording via close mic'ing so that it doesn't mingle with
the sound of the listener's room.


If you do that, then you have ONLY the sound of the listener's room, which
means you're hearing the sound of a small living room. You likely want
a more distant sound than that, which you can achieve with more distant
mikes, with leakage between different mikes used at the same time, or
with artificial reverb.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #17   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Les Cargill[_4_] Les Cargill[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,383
Default Recording with Measurement Mics

James Price wrote:
If the goal of a live recording is to record the instruments as
faithfully as possible to the source audio, wouldn't a measurement
mic with a flat response be preferred over a mic with a response
that's not flat?

For example, if I wanted to record a guitar playing through a 1x12
cab at a reasonable volume, wouldn't a flat response mic be preferred
if the goal were to record the sound coming out of the cab as
accurately as possible?


What people want is what's on records they have heard. So that's
something like an SM57, a Senn e609 ( or e906 ) or Audix i5.

I've done what you say. For distorted amps, people don't want
that. It's too crunchy and if it gets loud, it can overload the
FET in the condenser element.

For nice clean amps at reasonable volume it's great.

--
Les Cargill
  #18   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Tobiah Tobiah is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 666
Default Recording with Measurement Mics

On 07/26/2018 09:11 AM, James Price wrote:
If the goal of a live recording is to record the instruments as
faithfully as possible to the source audio, wouldn't a measurement
mic with a flat response be preferred over a mic with a response
that's not flat?

For example, if I wanted to record a guitar playing through a 1x12
cab at a reasonable volume, wouldn't a flat response mic be preferred
if the goal were to record the sound coming out of the cab as
accurately as possible?


I posted a similar question some time ago, and one person brought
up the idea that low self noise may not be a primary objective when
designing a measurement mic. That's important to me because I
often record quieter sounds.


  #19   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Recording with Measurement Mics

In article , Tobiah wrote:
I posted a similar question some time ago, and one person brought
up the idea that low self noise may not be a primary objective when
designing a measurement mic. That's important to me because I
often record quieter sounds.


Low self noise and sometimes low distortion are often overlooked with
measurement microphone design.

There is an article in the July 2016 issue of AudioXPress about modifying
B&K lab mikes for recording applications, which changes some of those
compromises.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #20   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Don Pearce[_3_] Don Pearce[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,417
Default Recording with Measurement Mics

On Mon, 30 Jul 2018 10:53:28 -0700, Tobiah wrote:

On 07/26/2018 09:11 AM, James Price wrote:
If the goal of a live recording is to record the instruments as
faithfully as possible to the source audio, wouldn't a measurement
mic with a flat response be preferred over a mic with a response
that's not flat?

For example, if I wanted to record a guitar playing through a 1x12
cab at a reasonable volume, wouldn't a flat response mic be preferred
if the goal were to record the sound coming out of the cab as
accurately as possible?


I posted a similar question some time ago, and one person brought
up the idea that low self noise may not be a primary objective when
designing a measurement mic. That's important to me because I
often record quieter sounds.


There is a conflict which needs a compromise. The ideal measurement
mic has zero size, but that means infinite noise. So you need to make
a decision where to reach a desirable compromise between accuracy and
noise. B&K have their decision, Behringer have another. Depending on
what you want to measure, there will be an optimum mic.

d


  #21   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] gwolf@howlingmad.org is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Recording with Measurement Mics

On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 07:11:01 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2018 10:53:28 -0700, Tobiah wrote:

On 07/26/2018 09:11 AM, James Price wrote:
If the goal of a live recording is to record the instruments as
faithfully as possible to the source audio, wouldn't a measurement
mic with a flat response be preferred over a mic with a response
that's not flat?

For example, if I wanted to record a guitar playing through a 1x12
cab at a reasonable volume, wouldn't a flat response mic be preferred
if the goal were to record the sound coming out of the cab as
accurately as possible?


I posted a similar question some time ago, and one person brought
up the idea that low self noise may not be a primary objective when
designing a measurement mic. That's important to me because I
often record quieter sounds.


There is a conflict which needs a compromise. The ideal measurement
mic has zero size, but that means infinite noise. So you need to make
a decision where to reach a desirable compromise between accuracy and
noise. B&K have their decision, Behringer have another. Depending on
what you want to measure, there will be an optimum mic.

d



FWIW, In the early '70s I was visiting a top level R&D lab in
Nashville. A tech was showing me some of their projects. One
was using a measurement mic. I was very small, about the size of a
cigarette filter. He said the freq response was very good but it was
worthless for audio recording.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

  #22   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] thekmanrocks@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,742
Default Recording with Measurement Mics

"FWIW, In the early '70s I was visiting a top level R&D lab in
Nashville. A tech was showing me some of their projects. One
was using a measurement mic. I was very small, about the size of a
cigarette filter. He said the freq response was very good but it was
worthless for audio recording. "

So this begs the question: When and where(within the recording
and playback of music) is 'flat' important??
  #23   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers[_2_] Mike Rivers[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,190
Default Recording with Measurement Mics

On 8/1/2018 4:25 PM, wrote:
"FWIW, In the early '70s I was visiting a top level R&D lab in
Nashville. A tech was showing me some of their projects. One
was using a measurement mic. I was very small, about the size of a
cigarette filter. He said the freq response was very good but it was
worthless for audio recording. "


He could have been using one of these, or something similar from another
manufacturer:

http://www.mic-w.com/products.php?cid=46

As it's been pointed out here, small measurement mics typically have low
sensitivity, that is, significantly less output than a typical recording
mic for a given SPL. Recording mics need to work satisfactorily over a
very wide dynamic range (you want to capture the stick hitting the snare
drum and the tail end of the reverberation decay, a range of 80 to 90
dB), while a measurement mic is usually used over a much smaller dynamic
range, or at a single level for a single measurement. You wouldn't use
the same measurement mic to measure noise on an airport runway as you
would in a field on a quiet night.

So this begs the question: When and where(within the recording
and playback of music) is 'flat' important??


It's important in the signal chain, so that you can modify it
predictably if you choose to do so. Recording microphones are usually
designed with known frequency response peaks and dips that have proven
to be flattering or useful for particular sound sources. This is why a
mic that sounds good on a snare drum has a different frequency response
curve than a mic that sounds good on a male vocal. There's no reason why
you couldn't use a dead flat mic on either of those sources but it
wouldn't sound like you're accustomed to hearing those sources miked
with the usual mics.

You could make it sound more or less like a "sounds good on...." mic by
applying EQ, but since most of the "sounds good on..." mics are
directional, they have their unique off-axis frequency response curves,
and a measurement mic, which is typically omni, wouldn't be able to
accurately reproduce the off-axis response with simple EQ.

There's been a fair amount of work in microphone modeling in the past
few years, so now we have mics from, for example, Antelope Audio and
Steven Slate, that start out with a pretty flat, pretty omni mic and DSP
is used to create the phase shifts and resonances within a particular
"sounds good on..." mic to provide a reasonably good faith model.

But that's more than you want to know.
--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com
  #25   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Phil Allison[_4_] Phil Allison[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 499
Default Recording with Measurement Mics

wrote:


"FWIW, In the early '70s I was visiting a top level R&D lab in
Nashville. A tech was showing me some of their projects. One
was using a measurement mic. I was very small, about the size of a
cigarette filter. He said the freq response was very good but it was
worthless for audio recording. "


So this begs the question: When and where(within the recording
and playback of music) is 'flat' important??


** The tech's comment implies wide, flat response is important to music recording, the tiny mic has that but is compromised in other ways - like having limited dynamic range. IOW it's too noisy for low level audio.

Classical and Jazz musicians care a lot about the tonal qualities of their instruments, often paying big money to get desired qualities. The mistake is in thinking it takes a "measurement mic" to capture sound quality accurately when judged by human ears or that using one would do a better job.




..... Phil









  #26   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Dieter Michel Dieter Michel is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19
Default Recording with Measurement Mics

Hi Tobiah,

If the goal of a live recording is to record the instruments as
faithfully as possible to the source audio, wouldn't a measurement
mic with a flat response be preferred over a mic with a response
that's not flat?


I posted a similar question some time ago, and one person brought
up the idea that low self noise may not be a primary objective when
designing a measurement mic. That's important to me because I
often record quieter sounds.


I actually made that very experience like 30 years ago
when I attempted to make speech recordings in a very
quiet and acoustically dry environment.

The first trial using B&K measurement mics and
corresponding (pre)amplifiers resulted in too noisy
recordings.

After I bought a John Hardy M1 mic preamp and used
a Neumann U87 or AKG C414 mic, everything was fine.

Best regards

Dieter Michel

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
MS Recording Mics adam79 Pro Audio 17 October 5th 12 03:59 PM
Behringer ECM8000 / Apex 220 measurement mics... Scott Dorsey Pro Audio 2 May 11th 06 03:10 PM
Gefell measurement mics for classical recording? Andy Pro Audio 15 April 28th 06 07:13 PM
FS: Mics For Live Recording Len Moskowitz Marketplace 0 November 19th 04 03:40 PM
FS: Mics For Live Recording Len Moskowitz Marketplace 0 July 1st 04 01:09 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:47 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"