[mcp6453[_2_]]

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.

[Bill Graham]

mcp6453 wrote:
How do the new Telefunken mics, such as the U47 with a VF14k, compare
with their originals? Are the Telefunken recreations any better than
the knock offs, like Wunder, Peluso, and a host of others? The new
U47 is $9000.

The obvious question is, is it 100 times better than the $90 microphones on
the market? And, how do you build a $9000 microphone that costs 100 times as
much as the ones you can build for $90? Are you sure you aren't buying
jewlery? Like what you buy when you buy a $9000 watch? It won't keep time
100 times better than the $90 watch, but it will be encrusted with diamonds
and rubies. Will the performers sing better when using it? I am not a pro
audio guy. But my common sense tells me to be very suspicious of any
microphone that costs more than about $500. I think that, like guitars, you
don't gain much above $500.

[timewarp2008]

On Dec 9, 8:49*pm, "Bill Graham" wrote:
I am not a pro audio guy.
+1

[Jenn[_2_]]

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).

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com

[hank alrich]

Bill Graham wrote:

mcp6453 wrote:
How do the new Telefunken mics, such as the U47 with a VF14k, compare
with their originals? Are the Telefunken recreations any better than
the knock offs, like Wunder, Peluso, and a host of others? The new
U47 is $9000.

The obvious question is, is it 100 times better than the $90 microphones on
the market? And, how do you build a $9000 microphone that costs 100 times as
much as the ones you can build for $90? Are you sure you aren't buying
jewlery? Like what you buy when you buy a $9000 watch? It won't keep time
100 times better than the $90 watch, but it will be encrusted with diamonds
and rubies. Will the performers sing better when using it?

Read your next sentence and tell me what the hell you think you're doing
offering adivice about mics in this forum?

I am not a pro audio guy.

That's for sure.

But my common sense tells me to be very suspicious of any
microphone that costs more than about $500.

Common sense tells me you know nothing at all about mics above five
hundred bucks.

I think that, like guitars, you don't gain much above $500.

And now I got a trumpet player telling me how much I shouldn't have
spent on my guitar.

Listen, Bill, you have NO idea what's out there in the way of good
guitars. I mean _no idea at all_.

(I hope you didn't spend more than a hundred bucks on your trumpet.)

What is the best mic you have ever used? Be honest here.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShai...withDougHarman

[hank alrich]

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.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShai...withDougHarman

[Bill Graham]

timewarp2008 wrote:
On Dec 9, 8:49 pm, "Bill Graham" wrote:
I am not a pro audio guy.
+1

Ah! Proof by status. "Logic doesn't matter in this case, your honor. My
client has a better education than the opposition. Therefore he must be
correct."

[Bill Graham]

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.

[Bill Graham]

hank alrich wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:

mcp6453 wrote:
How do the new Telefunken mics, such as the U47 with a VF14k,
compare with their originals? Are the Telefunken recreations any
better than the knock offs, like Wunder, Peluso, and a host of
others? The new U47 is $9000.

The obvious question is, is it 100 times better than the $90
microphones on the market? And, how do you build a $9000 microphone
that costs 100 times as much as the ones you can build for $90? Are
you sure you aren't buying jewlery? Like what you buy when you buy a
$9000 watch? It won't keep time 100 times better than the $90 watch,
but it will be encrusted with diamonds and rubies. Will the
performers sing better when using it?

Read your next sentence and tell me what the hell you think you're
doing offering adivice about mics in this forum?

I am not a pro audio guy.

That's for sure.

But my common sense tells me to be very suspicious of any
microphone that costs more than about $500.

Common sense tells me you know nothing at all about mics above five
hundred bucks.

I think that, like guitars, you don't gain much above $500.

And now I got a trumpet player telling me how much I shouldn't have
spent on my guitar.

Listen, Bill, you have NO idea what's out there in the way of good
guitars. I mean _no idea at all_.

(I hope you didn't spend more than a hundred bucks on your trumpet.)

What is the best mic you have ever used? Be honest here.

When you have subjected your $9000 mike to the double blind test that I
described in the above post, then I will give your "pro" status some
credibility, but at 75 I have seen a hell of a lot of placebo effects and
had them illustrated to me enough times that my nose is sore. Its
significant to me that the
French picked their wines as the best in the world for years until the
Japanese came along with a double blind test that showed that California
wines were just as good, if not better. When neither the judges nor the
proctors know what the test is all about, then its "double blind". And these
tests have taught the world a hell of a lot in my experience.
Oh, I wouldn't spend more that $500 for a mike for regular stage
performances that I use them for. If you are doing something really unusual,
like miking hummingbirds in a gale, well, that's different. But $9000? Give
me a break!

[Bill Graham]

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)

[Mike Rivers]

On 12/9/2010 10:40 PM, hank alrich wrote:
Bill wrote:

The obvious question is, is it 100 times better than the $90 microphones on
the market? And, how do you build a $9000 microphone that costs 100 times as
much as the ones you can build for $90? Are you sure you aren't buying
jewlery?

Common sense tells me you know nothing at all about mics above five
hundred bucks.

I think that Bill's advice is good for him. I also wouldn't
advise anyone who wasn't experienced with recording and
acoustics to buy a $9,000 mic just because it's supposed to
be really, really, good. There are, indeed, a lot of mics
for $500 and less with which you can do really good work,
and I doubt that there's an engineer anywhere who CAN'T get
good results with anything but a $9,000 mic.

But there's a certain satisfaction about working with a
really nice tool, just like there's something satisfying
about playing a really nice guitar, that's above
justification simply on the basis of price. Some will pay
it, some won't. Both are OK.


--
"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

[Cyberserf[_2_]]

On Dec 9, 10:09*pm, 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).

--www.jennifermartinmusic.com

+10

[Cyberserf[_2_]]

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

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
"Bill Graham" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
"Bill Graham" wrote:

I think that, like guitars, you
don't gain much above $500.

Man, do I disagree with that (the guitar part).

Well, perhaps you should learn something about double blind tests.

I know something about double blind tests.

This is
where someone who plays the guitar very well, but hasn't been informed what
the test is all about, plays both instruments from behind a curtin, and you
try to tell which one is the $5000 guitar, and which one is the $500 model.

I'll take that test any day of the week.

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
"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)

Thanks for telling me how I think.

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 23:13:59 -0800, "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.

Not double blind, unless you can find some way of disguising the
microphones. Of course the test may well reveal something about the
microphones, but there is no guarantee that what it shows has anything
to do with quality. For example small differences in off-axis response
can have a significant effect in a less-than-perfect room. The cheaper
mic may well have a fortuitous null in just the right direction and
appear to be better than the good one.

I'm afraid that with things as complex as a mic, the word quality
doesn't boil down to anything even remotely simple.

d

[[email protected]]

Bill Graham wrote:
: Well, perhaps you should learn something about double blind tests.

If you're referring to musical instruments, you've completely
left out playability, durability, etc.

[hank alrich]

Bill Graham wrote:

timewarp2008 wrote:
On Dec 9, 8:49 pm, "Bill Graham" wrote:
I am not a pro audio guy.
+1

Ah! Proof by status. "Logic doesn't matter in this case, your honor. My
client has a better education than the opposition. Therefore he must be
correct."

There is a not too subtle difference between "logic" and "talking out
one's ass about subjects of which one has little knowledge but plenty of
opinions".

Most people come here to learn. That's how I got here a while ago. You
could try that.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShai...withDougHarman

[hank alrich]

Bill Graham wrote:

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.

Bill, yer ful o' ****. Have a nice day.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShai...withDougHarman

[hank alrich]

Bill Graham wrote:

hank alrich wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:

mcp6453 wrote:
How do the new Telefunken mics, such as the U47 with a VF14k,
compare with their originals? Are the Telefunken recreations any
better than the knock offs, like Wunder, Peluso, and a host of
others? The new U47 is $9000.

The obvious question is, is it 100 times better than the $90
microphones on the market? And, how do you build a $9000 microphone
that costs 100 times as much as the ones you can build for $90? Are
you sure you aren't buying jewlery? Like what you buy when you buy a
$9000 watch? It won't keep time 100 times better than the $90 watch,
but it will be encrusted with diamonds and rubies. Will the
performers sing better when using it?

Read your next sentence and tell me what the hell you think you're
doing offering adivice about mics in this forum?

I am not a pro audio guy.

That's for sure.

But my common sense tells me to be very suspicious of any
microphone that costs more than about $500.

Common sense tells me you know nothing at all about mics above five
hundred bucks.

I think that, like guitars, you don't gain much above $500.

And now I got a trumpet player telling me how much I shouldn't have
spent on my guitar.

Listen, Bill, you have NO idea what's out there in the way of good
guitars. I mean _no idea at all_.

(I hope you didn't spend more than a hundred bucks on your trumpet.)

What is the best mic you have ever used? Be honest here.

When you have subjected your $9000 mike to the double blind test that I
described in the above post, then I will give your "pro" status some
credibility, but at 75 I have seen a hell of a lot of placebo effects and
had them illustrated to me enough times that my nose is sore.

Argument by bull****. Your nose is sore becuase you keep sticking your
head up your ass.

Answer the question: "What is the best mic you have ever used? Be honest
here."

Its
significant to me that the
French picked their wines as the best in the world for years until the
Japanese came along with a double blind test that showed that California
wines were just as good, if not better. When neither the judges nor the
proctors know what the test is all about, then its "double blind". And these
tests have taught the world a hell of a lot in my experience.
Oh, I wouldn't spend more that $500 for a mike for regular stage
performances that I use them for. If you are doing something really unusual,
like miking hummingbirds in a gale, well, that's different. But $9000? Give
me a break!

I repeat, you do not know **** about mics, and you know less about
guitars. Engineer yourself some humility if you can find the raw
materials. If you cannot do that you are the troll others have tagged.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShai...withDougHarman

[Neil Gould]

Bill Graham wrote:
Jenn wrote:
In article ,
"Bill Graham" wrote:

I think that, like guitars, you
don't gain much above $500.

Man, do I disagree with that (the guitar part).

Well, perhaps you should learn something about double blind tests.

I know enough about double blind testing to tell you that you are
misapplying the concept in this case.

This is where someone who plays the guitar very well, but hasn't been
informed what the test is all about, plays both instruments from
behind a curtin, and you try to tell which one is the $5000 guitar,

Is that a behind relative of Jane Curtin? ;-) If not, how does one play a
guitar behind a curtain?

The quality of a guitar is less about how it looks than how it feels, how it
responds to the player, and the tonal result, which is significantly
affected by the player. To one with little experience, the subtleties
between, e.g. a $500 Yamaha and a $5,000 Martin may not be appreciated. To
those with a lot of experience, the differences are obvious. Whether the
differences are "worth it" or not is a personal matter.

and which one is the $500 model. In this case, he can play the
same guitar into the $500 mike, and again into the $9000 mike, and if
a signiuficant number of audiophiles can tell which is which, then at
least, I will know there is some difference. Whether that difference
is worth $8500 is yet another story.

I think you're missing some important factors, Bill. For example, consider
trying to make two mics that have exactly the same audio characteristics.
Microphone mechanics and production methods will insure that the number of
components that get scrapped will far outnumber those that are usable for
those two mics. Also, the cost of manufactured products is affected by
production volume. It will cost a lot more to make 100 units a year of a
particular product than 10,000. Put jsut those two factors together, and it
is not hard to imagine that the cost of the mic will be astronomical.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Arny Krueger]

"Bill Graham" wrote in message

mcp6453 wrote:
How do the new Telefunken mics, such as the U47 with a
VF14k, compare with their originals? Are the Telefunken
recreations any better than the knock offs, like Wunder,
Peluso, and a host of others? The new U47 is $9000.

The obvious question is, is it 100 times better than the
$90 microphones on the market?

It doesn't have to be. At this price level, most would agree that
diminishing returns may have set in.

And, how do you build a
$9000 microphone that costs 100 times as much as the ones
you can build for $90?

Better design, better materials, better fabrication, better assembly, better
QC.

If you've been paying attention, you know that the $90 mics are usually
clones or derivatives of some really pretty good mic from the past.

If you look carefully at the spec sheets you often find that the more
expensive mics have helpful refinements like better off-axis response and
lower residual noise. You know that there are a virtually unlimited number
of responses versus acceptance angle that can all be called "cardioid",
right?

If you use cheap mics you know that they may be more prone to failure under
tough conditions of humidity, temperature, and shock. The assembly
tolerances are sometimes so variable that people have made a business out of
buying the same parts and assembling them more carefully, using
better-trained staff.

Are the profit margins higher? Probably.

At this point just about everybody, no matter what their preferences are has
done a gig with a cheap mic and it came out pretty well, all things
considered. Doesn't mean that it might have sounded better with a better
tool.

Are you sure you aren't buying jewlery?

For $9k I do expect a nearly jewel-like appearance. But I've just pointed
out all the ways that there could be more than a pretty face to behold and
benefit from.

Like what you buy when you buy a $9000 watch? It
won't keep time 100 times better than the $90 watch, but
it will be encrusted with diamonds and rubies.

I think you can pay $9 large for a watch with no precious or semi-precious
stones on it at all.

Will the performers sing better when using it?

In a sighted evaluation, perhaps. You hand them the mic, you tell them not
to drop it because it cost $9k. That might improve their attitude a bit! ;-)

I am not a pro audio guy. But my common sense tells me to be very
suspicious of any microphone that costs more than about
$500.

I think you've set the bar too low. I routinely use a half dozen or so mics
that list for $488 each, most of which have another $100 or so worth of
options attached. Those are $588 microphones, right? If a cheapskate like
me is using stuff like that, where is the bar to be set? Much higher, it
seems.

I've done a fair amount of work with borrowed mics that list for about $2k
each. Almost cried when I sent them back. In some sense they are equivalent
to mics that sell for $49.95 but let me tell you about the ways that they
are different...

I think that, like guitars, you don't gain much above $500.

You stuck your foot in it now! The musos I work with are not so much about
expensive guitars but there is definately some far bigger money on the table
when we start talking about their brass and woodwind instruments. Also true
of the various permuations of violins, both large and small. $500 is chump
change when it comes to professional grade musical instruments of just about
any kind.

[Scott Dorsey]

Arny Krueger wrote:

Better design, better materials, better fabrication, better assembly, better
QC.

If you've been paying attention, you know that the $90 mics are usually
clones or derivatives of some really pretty good mic from the past.

Unfortunately there ARE some companies whose $900 microphones have the
same capsules and same QC and basic built quality as their $90 microphones.

Traditional old-line companies were engineering-driven. They designed a
good product, then they would take what they learned and use it to make
lower cost products with some cost-cutting done.

Currently there are a lot of companies that are basically all using the same
capsule designs, mostly adapted from some of the products of those old-line
companies but often by people who didn't understand how they worked. These
folks are very successful on the bottom end of the market, and they are
using the technology they made cheap microphones with to make expensive
microphones. BUT, they still don't have actual engineering skills and they
don't know what makes a good product.

So... you CAN get your money's worth when you buy an expensive microphone,
but these days you don't NECESSARILY get it.

I have reviewed some really dreadful $5000 microphones in the last few years.
--scott


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

[hank alrich]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Bill Graham" wrote in message

mcp6453 wrote:
How do the new Telefunken mics, such as the U47 with a
VF14k, compare with their originals? Are the Telefunken
recreations any better than the knock offs, like Wunder,
Peluso, and a host of others? The new U47 is $9000.

The obvious question is, is it 100 times better than the
$90 microphones on the market?

It doesn't have to be. At this price level, most would agree that
diminishing returns may have set in.

And, how do you build a
$9000 microphone that costs 100 times as much as the ones
you can build for $90?

Better design, better materials, better fabrication, better assembly, better
QC.

If you've been paying attention, you know that the $90 mics are usually
clones or derivatives of some really pretty good mic from the past.

If you look carefully at the spec sheets you often find that the more
expensive mics have helpful refinements like better off-axis response and
lower residual noise. You know that there are a virtually unlimited number
of responses versus acceptance angle that can all be called "cardioid",
right?

If you use cheap mics you know that they may be more prone to failure under
tough conditions of humidity, temperature, and shock. The assembly
tolerances are sometimes so variable that people have made a business out of
buying the same parts and assembling them more carefully, using
better-trained staff.

Are the profit margins higher? Probably.

At this point just about everybody, no matter what their preferences are has
done a gig with a cheap mic and it came out pretty well, all things
considered. Doesn't mean that it might have sounded better with a better
tool.

Are you sure you aren't buying jewlery?

For $9k I do expect a nearly jewel-like appearance. But I've just pointed
out all the ways that there could be more than a pretty face to behold and
benefit from.

Like what you buy when you buy a $9000 watch? It
won't keep time 100 times better than the $90 watch, but
it will be encrusted with diamonds and rubies.

I think you can pay $9 large for a watch with no precious or semi-precious
stones on it at all.

Will the performers sing better when using it?

In a sighted evaluation, perhaps. You hand them the mic, you tell them not
to drop it because it cost $9k. That might improve their attitude a bit! ;-)

I am not a pro audio guy. But my common sense tells me to be very
suspicious of any microphone that costs more than about
$500.

I think you've set the bar too low. I routinely use a half dozen or so mics
that list for $488 each, most of which have another $100 or so worth of
options attached. Those are $588 microphones, right? If a cheapskate like
me is using stuff like that, where is the bar to be set? Much higher, it
seems.

I've done a fair amount of work with borrowed mics that list for about $2k
each. Almost cried when I sent them back. In some sense they are equivalent
to mics that sell for $49.95 but let me tell you about the ways that they
are different...

I think that, like guitars, you don't gain much above $500.

You stuck your foot in it now! The musos I work with are not so much about
expensive guitars but there is definately some far bigger money on the table
when we start talking about their brass and woodwind instruments. Also true
of the various permuations of violins, both large and small. $500 is chump
change when it comes to professional grade musical instruments of just about
any kind.

Arny, kudos, man; that is a beautiful response.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShai...withDougHarman

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message


Currently there are a lot of companies that are basically
all using the same capsule designs, mostly adapted from
some of the products of those old-line companies but
often by people who didn't understand how they worked.
These folks are very successful on the bottom end of the
market, and they are using the technology they made cheap
microphones with to make expensive microphones. BUT,
they still don't have actual engineering skills and they
don't know what makes a good product.

So... you CAN get your money's worth when you buy an
expensive microphone, but these days you don't
NECESSARILY get it.

I have reviewed some really dreadful $5000 microphones in
the last few years. --scott

IOW, you may get what you pay for if you spend the big bucks, but only if
you spend them carefully.

I wonder about people whose very first pair of mics cost more than $500, let
alone $5,000.

[Doug McDonald[_4_]]

$500 is chump
change when it comes to professional grade musical instruments of just about
any kind.


Really. I got a viola when I was in high school in 1960.

It cost $250.

Now consider inflation.

That was an absolute bottom of the line pro-grade instrument back then.
Suitable for back-desk provincial symphony orchestra or in a band
supporting a provincial "Broadway musical" ensemble (where in
fact I played it professionally).

Now again consider inflation.

I practically fainted when I found out how much the school district
payed for the bassoon I played in band! (payed in 1948).

Doug McDonald

[timewarp2008]

On Dec 10, 2:06*am, "Bill Graham" wrote:
timewarp2008 wrote:
On Dec 9, 8:49 pm, "Bill Graham" wrote:
*I am not a pro audio guy.
+1

Ah! Proof by status. "Logic doesn't matter in this case, your honor. My
client has a better education than the opposition. Therefore he must be
correct."

Wow! A mere two non-alphabetic characters, implying agreement with
you, and you come up with that extraordinary fantasy. You must have a
very fertile imagination. I think I can guess what kind of bovine
fertilizer is involved. Thanks for the laugh.

BTW, I think it's possible to get a top-quality professional
instrument for under $500. If you play blues harp or pennywhistle. But
you must have incredibly low standards for guitars. Thanks again for
the comedy. It made my day!

[[email protected]]

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.

[Bill Graham]

Mike Rivers wrote:
On 12/9/2010 10:40 PM, hank alrich wrote:
Bill wrote:

The obvious question is, is it 100 times better than the $90
microphones on the market? And, how do you build a $9000 microphone
that costs 100 times as much as the ones you can build for $90? Are
you sure you aren't buying jewlery?

Common sense tells me you know nothing at all about mics above five
hundred bucks.

I think that Bill's advice is good for him. I also wouldn't
advise anyone who wasn't experienced with recording and
acoustics to buy a $9,000 mic just because it's supposed to
be really, really, good. There are, indeed, a lot of mics
for $500 and less with which you can do really good work,
and I doubt that there's an engineer anywhere who CAN'T get
good results with anything but a $9,000 mic.

But there's a certain satisfaction about working with a
really nice tool, just like there's something satisfying
about playing a really nice guitar, that's above
justification simply on the basis of price. Some will pay
it, some won't. Both are OK.

Sure. Even I, who po po's the $9000 mike don't care if someone who has more
money than he knows what to do with buys one. That's capiralism. There are
prople who wouldn't drive anywhere except in their Bentley, either. I can
only speak for myself. Everyone should understand that. If you have money to
burn, then you can afford to buy some very nice things. And, if that is what
turns you on, then I wouldn't stop you for the world.I am simply suggesting
that there exists a price for everything that, beyond which, you are really
buying status, and are operating way past the peak of the price/value curve.
I doubt seriously whether there is anyone who has ever really needed a $9000
mike in order to do his job properly. The people who probably buy such
things are people who really have more money than they know what to do with.
Perhaps the recording engineer for the Rolling Stones would buy a half dozen
$9000 mikes, just so at cocktail parties he (and the rest of the Stones)
could mention that their mikes "cost us $9000 each". IOW, it is a status
thing. They would kick me out of their party when I asked, "And how do they
differ from the nine hundred dollar ones?"

[timewarp2008]

On Dec 10, 9:25*pm, "Bill Graham" wrote:
Perhaps the recording engineer for the Rolling Stones would buy a half dozen
$9000 mikes, just so at cocktail parties he (and the rest of the Stones)
could mention that their mikes "cost us $9000 each". IOW, it is a status
thing. They would kick me out of their party when I asked, "And how do they
differ from the nine hundred dollar ones?"

You could yell at them to get off your lawn.

[Bill Graham]

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 Graham]

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
"Bill Graham" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
"Bill Graham" wrote:

I think that, like guitars, you
don't gain much above $500.

Man, do I disagree with that (the guitar part).

Well, perhaps you should learn something about double blind tests.

I know something about double blind tests.

This is
where someone who plays the guitar very well, but hasn't been
informed what the test is all about, plays both instruments from
behind a curtin, and you try to tell which one is the $5000 guitar,
and which one is the $500 model.

I'll take that test any day of the week.

You play very nicely. And your guitar looks beautiful. And guitars are much
more difficult to make than are trumpets, so perhaps I should draw the line
with them at say, $1000 instead of $500. But basically, what I said about
the placebo effect still stands. There is a tremendous influence over one's
psyche due to the looks and finish of the instrument, and it tends to
overcome ones perception of what one hears. There is no way to resolve this
argument here, but at 75, I have seen a lot of people who were influenced by
this effect in some rather amazing ways, so it is not to be taken lightly.
There are, for example, companies who make their living cooling horns down
to the temperature of liquid nitrogen for a couple of hours and then letting
them come back to room temperature in order to "Improve their sound". As one
who learned about metallurgy many years ago, I can tell you that this can't
possibly change their sound at all, and yet there are many horn players who
swear by this effect.

[Bill Graham]

Don Pearce wrote:
On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 23:13:59 -0800, "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.

Not double blind, unless you can find some way of disguising the
microphones. Of course the test may well reveal something about the
microphones, but there is no guarantee that what it shows has anything
to do with quality. For example small differences in off-axis response
can have a significant effect in a less-than-perfect room. The cheaper
mic may well have a fortuitous null in just the right direction and
appear to be better than the good one.

I'm afraid that with things as complex as a mic, the word quality
doesn't boil down to anything even remotely simple.

d

In such tests, the simpler the circumstances the better, If you use
microphones, then a whole different set of unknowns are introduced into the
experiment. I was talking about the difference between a $500 classical
guitar and a $5000 one.
If you are testing microphones, then you would feed them both with
exactly (as far as is possible) the same program material, not tell the
performer what you were doing, so there would be no possibility that they
would influence the test, and try to detect the difference by ear between
the two mikes. And, of course, there is always the final problem. Even
though there is a detectable difference, who is to say which one is better?
The same thing is true in wine tasting. Just because some famous wine taster
can tell the difference between an expensive wine and a cheap one, that
doesn't mean that he will always prefer to drink the expensive wine..... He
might like the cheap wine better!

[Bill Graham]

wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:
Well, perhaps you should learn something about double blind tests.

If you're referring to musical instruments, you've completely
left out playability, durability, etc.

Yes, of course. The placebo effect is very real, and the manufacturers of
musical instruments depend on it to sell their stuff. I am subseptable to it
myself, and I always play better when I am playing my favorite horns. I am
not disparaging it, I am just calling attention to it, and trying to get
people to understand that it can end up costing them a lot of money. After
all, there is a big difference between $500 and $9000. $8500 in fact...:^)

[Bill Graham]

hank alrich wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:

timewarp2008 wrote:
On Dec 9, 8:49 pm, "Bill Graham" wrote:
I am not a pro audio guy.
+1

Ah! Proof by status. "Logic doesn't matter in this case, your honor.
My client has a better education than the opposition. Therefore he
must be correct."

There is a not too subtle difference between "logic" and "talking out
one's ass about subjects of which one has little knowledge but plenty
of opinions".

Most people come here to learn. That's how I got here a while ago. You
could try that.

I have. And, I have learned a lot by reading the posts here. I never said
otherwise. But, at 75, I too have a few tidbits of knowlege that I have
picked up over the years, and I have a right to voice them here. If you
disagree with any of them, you can certainly tell me. I have been known to
change my opinions from time to time. But usually not from posts like, "You
are a dumb ass". I need a little more explicit information than that.....

[hank alrich]

timewarp2008 wrote:

On Dec 10, 9:25 pm, "Bill Graham" wrote:
Perhaps the recording engineer for the Rolling Stones would buy a half dozen
$9000 mikes, just so at cocktail parties he (and the rest of the Stones)
could mention that their mikes "cost us $9000 each". IOW, it is a status
thing. They would kick me out of their party when I asked, "And how do they
differ from the nine hundred dollar ones?"

You could yell at them to get off your lawn.

!

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShai...withDougHarman

[Bill Graham]

hank alrich 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.

Bill, yer ful o' ****. Have a nice day.

There you go. You really expect me to change what I know about the placebo
effect from, "Bill, yer ful o' ****. Have a nice day." ?

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
"Bill Graham" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
"Bill Graham" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
"Bill Graham" wrote:

I think that, like guitars, you
don't gain much above $500.

Man, do I disagree with that (the guitar part).

Well, perhaps you should learn something about double blind tests.

I know something about double blind tests.

This is
where someone who plays the guitar very well, but hasn't been
informed what the test is all about, plays both instruments from
behind a curtin, and you try to tell which one is the $5000 guitar,
and which one is the $500 model.

I'll take that test any day of the week.

You play very nicely. And your guitar looks beautiful. And guitars are much
more difficult to make than are trumpets, so perhaps I should draw the line
with them at say, $1000 instead of $500. But basically, what I said about
the placebo effect still stands. There is a tremendous influence over one's
psyche due to the looks and finish of the instrument, and it tends to
overcome ones perception of what one hears. There is no way to resolve this
argument here, but at 75, I have seen a lot of people who were influenced by
this effect in some rather amazing ways, so it is not to be taken lightly.
There are, for example, companies who make their living cooling horns down
to the temperature of liquid nitrogen for a couple of hours and then letting
them come back to room temperature in order to "Improve their sound". As one
who learned about metallurgy many years ago, I can tell you that this can't
possibly change their sound at all, and yet there are many horn players who
swear by this effect.

Yes, my guitars look great. I just took delivery of a new custom made
Baranik, a beautiful instrument. And it is expensive. But I would want
it just as much if the finish was all banged up and it was painted
orange. The SOUND is what is most important to me, by a long shot.

And yes of course, good acoustic guitars are far harder to build than a
fine brass instrument. My excellent pro model trombone goes less than
half of what I just paid for the guitar.

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
"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?

Yes, I'm certain of it.

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com

[Bill Graham]

hank alrich wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:

hank alrich wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:

mcp6453 wrote:
How do the new Telefunken mics, such as the U47 with a VF14k,
compare with their originals? Are the Telefunken recreations any
better than the knock offs, like Wunder, Peluso, and a host of
others? The new U47 is $9000.

The obvious question is, is it 100 times better than the $90
microphones on the market? And, how do you build a $9000 microphone
that costs 100 times as much as the ones you can build for $90? Are
you sure you aren't buying jewlery? Like what you buy when you buy
a $9000 watch? It won't keep time 100 times better than the $90
watch, but it will be encrusted with diamonds and rubies. Will the
performers sing better when using it?

Read your next sentence and tell me what the hell you think you're
doing offering adivice about mics in this forum?

I am not a pro audio guy.

That's for sure.

But my common sense tells me to be very suspicious of any
microphone that costs more than about $500.

Common sense tells me you know nothing at all about mics above five
hundred bucks.

I think that, like guitars, you don't gain much above $500.

And now I got a trumpet player telling me how much I shouldn't have
spent on my guitar.

Listen, Bill, you have NO idea what's out there in the way of good
guitars. I mean _no idea at all_.

(I hope you didn't spend more than a hundred bucks on your trumpet.)

What is the best mic you have ever used? Be honest here.

When you have subjected your $9000 mike to the double blind test
that I described in the above post, then I will give your "pro"
status some credibility, but at 75 I have seen a hell of a lot of
placebo effects and had them illustrated to me enough times that my
nose is sore.

Argument by bull****. Your nose is sore becuase you keep sticking your
head up your ass.

Answer the question: "What is the best mic you have ever used? Be
honest here."

Its
significant to me that the
French picked their wines as the best in the world for years until
the Japanese came along with a double blind test that showed that
California wines were just as good, if not better. When neither the
judges nor the proctors know what the test is all about, then its
"double blind". And these tests have taught the world a hell of a
lot in my experience. Oh, I wouldn't spend more that $500 for a
mike for regular stage performances that I use them for. If you are
doing something really unusual, like miking hummingbirds in a gale,
well, that's different. But $9000? Give me a break!

I repeat, you do not know **** about mics, and you know less about
guitars. Engineer yourself some humility if you can find the raw
materials. If you cannot do that you are the troll others have tagged.

And who are you? Why should I give you the right to tell me what I know
about Mikes, Horns, or guitars? How many miles have you walked in my shoes?
If you disagree with anything I say, then refute it. But try to avoid words
like "ass", and "bull****" and try to stick to the facts. Have you ever
taken part in a double blind test? Can you tell the difference between a
$500 microphone and a $9000 one? And, if you can't, what business do you
have spending the other $8500? Would you be spending someone else's money?
These are all questions I can't answer about you, because I don't know you.
Unlike you, who seems to know everything about me. Or, at least, you are
quite willing to talk like you know everything about me.