[Ty Ford]

On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 20:31:33 -0500, mcp6453 wrote
(in article ):

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

While I do have experience with some pretty expensive mics and preamp, $9000
for a mic is a bit over the top. I don't think they'll make recordings that
are X times better than my $2000 mikes.

Some of the 1930-1940 Martin guitars were selling in the $25,000-$35,000
range at a guitar show a couple of years ago. They sounded very nice, but the
multiples don't add up.

Regards,

Ty Ford




--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[Ty Ford]

On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 18:48:56 -0500, Bill Graham wrote
(in article ) :

I don't believe I have ever used a mike thqt cost more than $500, and even
then, I had the thought, far in the back of my mind, that I could have gotten

the same value for less money.

Then please get back to us after you have used a Schoeps.

Regards,

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[hank alrich]

Ty Ford wrote:

On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 18:48:56 -0500, Bill Graham wrote
(in article ) :

I don't believe I have ever used a mike thqt cost more than $500, and
even then, I had the thought, far in the back of my mind, that I could
have gotten

the same value for less money.

Then please get back to us after you have used a Schoeps.

Thank you, Ty.


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

[Rick Ruskin]

On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 11:30:23 -0500, Ty Ford
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 16:21:04 -0500, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message


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

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

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

Name two!

Regards,

Ty Ford


Some friends brought over the Curtis Technology AL-2 Tube mic system
for me to check out about 10 years ago. They were AWFUL! List on
those was $3000.00 for a stereo pair.
Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://liondogmusic.com
http://www.myspace.com/rickruskin

[Scott Dorsey]

Rick Ruskin wrote:

Some friends brought over the Curtis Technology AL-2 Tube mic system
for me to check out about 10 years ago. They were AWFUL! List on
those was $3000.00 for a stereo pair.

Those had no high end response to speak of, yeah. And the sad part is
that if the engineers had done the math before they selected the diaphragm
material they did, they should have been able to predict that. So maybe
that's what they were aiming for... or maybe they made a mistake.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
PStamler wrote:

On Dec 11, 7:52*pm, (hank alrich) wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:
My Martin is a 0018C, which was not their "top of the line" classical when
it was built. That was the 00028C.

Those guitars are intended to be strung with nylon, but they are not
"classical guitars" in the generally applied
not-born-of-a-marketing-department sense.

And even with that caveat, a Martin something-28 isn't necessarily
"better" than a something-18. 28s are rosewood, 18s are mahogany. Some
people like the top-end sweetness of rosewood, others prefer the
bottom thump of mahogany. They're equally good in different ways (but
rosewood costs more, so Martin charges more for those guitars).

Peace,
Paul (a 00-18 guy)

The other difference between the 18s and the 28s are the "appointments"
on the 28s...generally more expensive bindings, etc.

Martin went through 15 years or so of general mediocracy, but has come
back strong. My OMC-28 Laurence Juber Pro is my favorite of all
factory-made guitars.

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com

[[email protected]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
: Rick Ruskin wrote:
: Some friends brought over the Curtis Technology AL-2 Tube mic system
: for me to check out about 10 years ago. They were AWFUL!
: Those had no high end response to speak of, yeah.

I'm curious, how did such a mic manage to get such a favorable
review in MIX magazine?

[Mike Rivers]

On 12/12/2010 2:40 PM,
wrote:

I'm curious, how did such a mic manage to get such a favorable
review in MIX magazine?

Every mic is good for SOMETHING. But I suspect that it had
something to do with buying a few quarter-page ads, and
perhaps a reviewer who had an an application that didn't
require a lot of top end.



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Cyberserf[_2_]]

On Dec 10, 9:55*pm, "Bill Graham" wrote:
Cyberserf wrote:
On Dec 10, 2:28 am, "Bill Graham" wrote:
hank alrich wrote:
Jenn wrote:

In article ,
"Bill Graham" wrote:

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

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

Bill knows less about guitars than he does about mics, and in a
professional audio forum context, he don't know **** about mics.

I played the classical guitar for several years....I know that Andre
Segovia had several 18th century harpsichords smashed up to get the
wood for his guitar, but I bet he never took a double blind test
either. I have been working with musicians for a long time now, and
I know the way they think. They are so impressionable that they will
deny physics to cling to their beliefs. Ask a trumpet player about,
"projection" sometime. And about "cryogenic treatment" also. (if you
want to get a good laugh)

How much would you pay for a Sergovia? Only $500? You're saying that a
Martin HD28 (above $500) is not much better than a Yamaha F310 (below
$500)...might you see where that might stretch the credulity of anyone
who knows anything about guitars?

In my neck of the woods $500 is where quality STARTS in guitars...I
have worked on and played literally thousands of guitars in all sorts
of price ranges over 30 years as a stringed instrument
technician...there are very few sub $500 guitars built today that I
would recommend to anyone...Instruments below $500 get you laminated
woods (tops/back and sides), inferior components, bad designs and
sloppy build quality...you don't even have to play them to feel how
precarious they are. Perhaps you meant to write $5000...in which case
I would still disagree, though much less vehemently.

I have also worked with a number of musicians...all have been very
well informed and passionate about their sound...rather than
impressionable, I would describe them as bull-headed and driven. Funny
how perceptions can be so divergent.

-CS

$500 is where quality starts, but I am speaking of where good sound starts.
Can you really tell the difference in sound of a $500 guitar over a $5000
one? I mean in a really good double blind test, where someone else was
playing the music behind a curtain? I am a musician myself. I love good
quality instruments. If I had the money, I would probably buy myself a horn
that cost over $5000. But, I also know that it probably would really not
sound any better than several I have that cost under $1000 when I bought
them several years ago. IOW, I am just as subseptable to the old placebo
effect as is anyone else. The only difference is, I know about the effect,
and many musicians do not. I love good guitars too. My Martin is a good
example. It only cost me a couple of hundred dollars when I bought it back
in the 70's. Today, it is worth several thousand dollars. But it is still
the same guitar! And, it doesn't sound any better than it did when I first
bought it! But when my guitar playing friends come over to my place and play
it, they say, Oh, my! Does this guitar sound good! And, it really does sound
good. But in my heart, I know that there are $500 instruments on the market
that would sound just as good. And, as audio engineering advances, there are
factories that could produce better sounding guitars using modern plastics
and carefully engineered shapes, coupled with good miking and fancy digital
effects that C.F.Martin never thought possible. IOW, we are fast entering a
whole different age in instrument design, and like with film cameras, we
will never be able to look back.

Bill,

You may have a point about the future direction of instruments, though
I've played Ovations and other carbon composite guitars...they leave
me cold. The point about quality is, as you know, a good bit of the
"sound" comes from the player...and good quality instruments are
easier to play, thus, they sound better when played by a larger
variety of artists. Keep in mind, your $200 Martin (whatever model)
would be sold new today for $1,200+...well above the $500 mark
anyway...you are being offered more due to its vintage status (that's
the hype)...it is the same guitar, but $500 today does not buy you
what it did yesterday. As I said...had you put the bar higher (say at
3K), I would have had very little issue with the statement, when they
all play and sound good, they all play and sound good. My point is
simply that many sub-$500 instruments today verge on the
unplayable...and yes, in many cases, you can hear the difference, but
in all cases, as a player, you can feel them.

Regards, CS

[timewarp2008]

Close-miking the throat of a trumpet bell, with the mic feeding an
effects stompbox and an instrument combo amp, what would such a
comparison teach anyone?

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

Bill Graham writes:

Right, which means that for those who come here to listen to
professionals discuss this stuff the opinions of an amateur
playing for a room full of geezers doesn't have as much
weight as those pros, but you post as if your opinions are
those that should matter.
Iow you make far too much noise for who you are and your
qualifications here.
snip again

Sorry, but I prefer to overtly jump in and ask. I learn a lot
quicker that way, and contrary to what you say, most of the posters
on this (and other) forums are happy to have my noise to post to. I
have been known to take a forum from two or three posts a day to
two or three hundred. Now, that's trolling, baby!

MIght be, and quantity has nothing to do with quality./ But then, if you think it is, then we're pretty much wasting our time trying to explain to you why the criteria we use to
judge microphones aren't all relevant to the world of the
beer hall and the senior center. THere are reasons the
Schoeps, Josephson, etc. are worth the money they ask for
them. THink I mentioned that in another one of my posts, as did SCott Dorsey and others.

G Besides, I add a lot to the discussions too. I haven't lived 75
G years for nothing. I can honestly say that I contribute as much as
G I gain. After all, I spent much of my life as an electronics tech.
G I fixed radars for the Navy, I repaired punched card equipment for
IBM, and huge walk-in power supplies for a high energy physics
lab..... I am no dummy either, you know.

Understand that, and were we talking power supply design, or rf immunity you'd have some relevant points to make I'm
sure.
But, if you don't understand the difference and why some of
us might reach for a Schoeps or other high end microphone
then all you're doing is making a lot of noise.
That you can't keep your political myopia out of discussions on this forum tells me all I need to know about you MR.
Graham.

plkunk
IN other words, when you don't know anything about the
topic, Hank has it right, you should stfu.

YOur tea party is full of medicare moochers.

Richard

.... Karaoke: Orig. Japanese "Tone-deaf drunk with microphone". ___
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[geoff]

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

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

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

Well, perhaps you should learn something about double blind tests.
This is where someone who plays the guitar very well, but hasn't been
informed what the test is all about, plays both instruments from
behind a curtin, and you try to tell which one is the $5000 guitar,
and which one is the $500 model. In this case, he can play the
same guitar into the $500 mike, and again into the $9000 mike, and if
a signiuficant number of audiophiles can tell which is which, then at
least, I will know there is some difference. Whether that difference
is worth $8500 is yet another story.

Where trhis analogy comes apart is that the value in a guitar is not
entirely the amount or quality of sound. Performance factors are a large
part of it too, and are incredibly variable.

geoff

[Bill Graham]

hank alrich wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:

I am not aware
of the complexity of microphones. Are there more than one moving
part inside one of those puppies?

It's a great big Internet, Bill, and you owe it to yourself to chase
that info.

Yeah, but there is an easy way and a hard way to find out most anything, and
the easy way for me with this is to wait for the results of that double
blind test......:^)

[Anahata]

On Thu, 09 Dec 2010 23:13:59 -0800, Bill Graham wrote:

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

Most subscribers to this group know a LOT about DBTs and you won't win
many friends though being so patronising.

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

Never mind the listeners behind the curtain, ask the PLAYER which guitar
he prefers.

That is one clue to the difference between mics - a good audio engineer
might be able to get a good guitar sound with a cheap mic but it's likely
to be much harder work (time = money) fiddling with mic position, room
acoustics and (as a last resort) EQ.

It's reasonable question to ask why a $9000 mic costs so much more than a
$9 mic. Here are some clues:

- Find out who did the research work designing the mic (as oppposed to
copying someone else's design).

- Look at the pay and working conditions of the people employed to make
the mics.

- Go to the factory and see how much testing they do at every stage of
manufacture. And to what tolerances they measure everything.

- Find out how much the design for optimum performance is compromised by
the use of cheaper materials and processes

- Buy a pair of cheap mics and see how well matched they are. Buy an
expensive mic, than buy another of the same model 10 years later and test
them for matching. While you are at it, check whether the cheap mic you
got 10 years ago is even still being made.

That's not a comprehensive list, and you can pick holes in any of those,
but you surely get the general idea.

--
Anahata
--/-- http://www.treewind.co.uk
+44 (0)1638 720444

[Bill Graham]

hank alrich wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:

My Martin is a 0018C, which was not their "top of the line"
classical when it was built. That was the 00028C.

Those guitars are intended to be strung with nylon, but they are not
"classical guitars" in the generally applied
not-born-of-a-marketing-department sense.

Oh? - That's news to me. At the time, the 00028 C was the most touted
American made classical guitar. I was not aware of any, "more classical"
guitars made unless they came from Spain or the Andelusian Mountains. Of
course, it had to be nylon strung. To string it with steel would have ruined
it. Its neck was not steel braced. Also, my classical guitar teacher was
perfectly happy with my 0018 C.

[Bill Graham]

rakmanenuff wrote:
On Dec 11, 4:38 am, "Bill Graham" wrote:
wrote:
There is a studio in town that gets a ton of business largely for
the vocal sound they achieve with their old Telefunken tube
mic/preamp (and some mods, and a nice room of course). That is one
sweet mic for the application, and I doubt there is a $500 mic that
could even come close.

Perhaps, if its old enough, it cost $500 new? But, I have revised my
figure to (perhaps) $1000 or so. I find that today, at 75, I am
usually working with figures about twenty years old.

I'm naturally assuming that a 75 year old
is 1.66 times smarter than me

Don't assume that. But you might consider that he may be 1.66 times more
experienced, depending on what he did for a living.

[Bill Graham]

Mike Rivers wrote:
On 12/11/2010 6:25 PM, Bill Graham wrote:

My Martin is a 0018C, which was not their "top of the line"
classical when it was built. That was the 00028C. It does
still sound very nice,

The 0028C was more expensive than the 0018C, but they're
different in price because of different materials and
decoration. They sound different, but, like with the
drednaught series, some have a preference for one sound and
others have a preference for the other sound.

but a real professional classical
player wouldn't mess with Martins anyway. He/she would go to
spain where there are classical guitars made in the
mountains between Spain and France that cost many thousands

Eventually, probably, that's true if his career path and
instrument lust led him in that direction. But there are
other guitar players than classical who are equally picky
and deserving of the finest instruments. And many of them
play Martins. 15 years ago, if they wanted a Martin-like
guitar with little tweaks to fit their playing style, they
had to go to a custom maker, but now Martin will customize
just about anything for anybody, and they're very good
guitars - but not classical guitars.

Hummm.....You have mentioned that a couple of times now. I have been to a
guitar shop neer Geary and Thirteenth streets in San Francisco, where the
guy has several hundred acoustical guitars from all over the world, and as
far as I can tell, they are all built exactly like my 0018C. Out of
different woods, and slightly different shapes perhaps, but I couldn't
specifically tell why any one of them, including the Martins, wouldn't
qualify as "classical guitars".

[Bill Graham]

Richard Kuschel wrote:
On Dec 11, 6:52 pm, (hank alrich) wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:
My Martin is a 0018C, which was not their "top of the line"
classical when it was built. That was the 00028C.

Those guitars are intended to be strung with nylon, but they are not
"classical guitars" in the generally applied
not-born-of-a-marketing-department sense.

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

Martin's only real "classical"l guitars were the N10 (mahogany) and
N20(rosewood).Tthese had classical body shapes and neck width which
the 00 series guitars do not.

They also had a more "classical" sound than the 00 series nylon strung
guitars.

My 0018C has a 2" wide at the nut neck. AFAIK, this is pretty standard.
Perhaps you are thinking of some Martin designations that have been made in
the intervening years? Both the 00028C, and the 0018C were definitely
considered to be classical guitars back in the late 60's.

[Bill Graham]

Ty Ford wrote:
On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 20:31:33 -0500, mcp6453 wrote
(in article ):

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

While I do have experience with some pretty expensive mics and
preamp, $9000 for a mic is a bit over the top. I don't think they'll
make recordings that are X times better than my $2000 mikes.

Some of the 1930-1940 Martin guitars were selling in the
$25,000-$35,000 range at a guitar show a couple of years ago. They
sounded very nice, but the multiples don't add up.

Regards,

Ty Ford

Yes. When it comes to collectors items, all bets are off. I was talking
about sound quality per dollar, and the price-performance curve. Collectors
are in a class by themselves......

[Bill Graham]

Ty Ford wrote:
On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 18:48:56 -0500, Bill Graham wrote
(in article ) :

I don't believe I have ever used a mike thqt cost more than $500,
and even then, I had the thought, far in the back of my mind, that I
could have gotten

the same value for less money.

Then please get back to us after you have used a Schoeps.

Regards,

Ty Ford

Well, if you send me one, I will be glad to try it out. Do they make a
clip-on the rim of the bell model for my horn?

[Bill Graham]

Cyberserf wrote:
On Dec 10, 9:55 pm, "Bill Graham" wrote:
Cyberserf wrote:
On Dec 10, 2:28 am, "Bill Graham" wrote:
hank alrich wrote:
Jenn wrote:

In article ,
"Bill Graham" wrote:

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

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

Bill knows less about guitars than he does about mics, and in a
professional audio forum context, he don't know **** about mics.

I played the classical guitar for several years....I know that
Andre Segovia had several 18th century harpsichords smashed up to
get the wood for his guitar, but I bet he never took a double
blind test either. I have been working with musicians for a long
time now, and I know the way they think. They are so
impressionable that they will deny physics to cling to their
beliefs. Ask a trumpet player about, "projection" sometime. And
about "cryogenic treatment" also. (if you want to get a good laugh)

How much would you pay for a Sergovia? Only $500? You're saying
that a Martin HD28 (above $500) is not much better than a Yamaha
F310 (below $500)...might you see where that might stretch the
credulity of anyone who knows anything about guitars?

In my neck of the woods $500 is where quality STARTS in guitars...I
have worked on and played literally thousands of guitars in all
sorts of price ranges over 30 years as a stringed instrument
technician...there are very few sub $500 guitars built today that I
would recommend to anyone...Instruments below $500 get you laminated
woods (tops/back and sides), inferior components, bad designs and
sloppy build quality...you don't even have to play them to feel how
precarious they are. Perhaps you meant to write $5000...in which
case I would still disagree, though much less vehemently.

I have also worked with a number of musicians...all have been very
well informed and passionate about their sound...rather than
impressionable, I would describe them as bull-headed and driven.
Funny how perceptions can be so divergent.

-CS

$500 is where quality starts, but I am speaking of where good sound
starts. Can you really tell the difference in sound of a $500 guitar
over a $5000 one? I mean in a really good double blind test, where
someone else was playing the music behind a curtain? I am a musician
myself. I love good quality instruments. If I had the money, I would
probably buy myself a horn that cost over $5000. But, I also know
that it probably would really not sound any better than several I
have that cost under $1000 when I bought them several years ago.
IOW, I am just as subseptable to the old placebo effect as is anyone
else. The only difference is, I know about the effect, and many
musicians do not. I love good guitars too. My Martin is a good
example. It only cost me a couple of hundred dollars when I bought
it back in the 70's. Today, it is worth several thousand dollars.
But it is still the same guitar! And, it doesn't sound any better
than it did when I first bought it! But when my guitar playing
friends come over to my place and play it, they say, Oh, my! Does
this guitar sound good! And, it really does sound good. But in my
heart, I know that there are $500 instruments on the market that
would sound just as good. And, as audio engineering advances, there
are factories that could produce better sounding guitars using
modern plastics and carefully engineered shapes, coupled with good
miking and fancy digital effects that C.F.Martin never thought
possible. IOW, we are fast entering a whole different age in
instrument design, and like with film cameras, we will never be able
to look back.

Bill,

You may have a point about the future direction of instruments, though
I've played Ovations and other carbon composite guitars...they leave
me cold. The point about quality is, as you know, a good bit of the
"sound" comes from the player...and good quality instruments are
easier to play, thus, they sound better when played by a larger
variety of artists. Keep in mind, your $200 Martin (whatever model)
would be sold new today for $1,200+...well above the $500 mark
anyway...you are being offered more due to its vintage status (that's
the hype)...it is the same guitar, but $500 today does not buy you
what it did yesterday. As I said...had you put the bar higher (say at
3K), I would have had very little issue with the statement, when they
all play and sound good, they all play and sound good. My point is
simply that many sub-$500 instruments today verge on the
unplayable...and yes, in many cases, you can hear the difference, but
in all cases, as a player, you can feel them.

Regards, CS

OK. I'll go to $3000. After all, this is 2010. Money is getting more and
more worthless all the time. (and my conservative friends say, "You ain't
seen nothin' yet") So make my first figure $3000, and not $500. But I claim
that paying more than that for a guitar is wasting your money on brand
names, fancy inlay work around the sound hole, gold plated tuning pegs,
exotic hardwoods, etc. You can probably pay $9000 for a guitar, but you
won't get 3X better sound than you get for $3000. I know that I can pay
$9000 for a flugelhorn, but ZI won't get 6X better sound from it than I can
get from my $1500 Getzen. Which doesn't mean that I wouldn't buy one if I
had the money. I am just as subseptable to the placebo effect as anyone
else.

[Bill Graham]

timewarp2008 wrote:
Close-miking the throat of a trumpet bell, with the mic feeding an
effects stompbox and an instrument combo amp, what would such a
comparison teach anyone?

Whose teaching? I am playing tunes from the 30's - 50's in a senior citizens
dance band, and playing around in my own living room with a bunch of
friends. Teachers are 1. Not retired 75 year olds. And 2. supposed to be
working, and not pursuing a hobby. At 75, I am having fun with music, man!

[Bill Graham]

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

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

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

Well, perhaps you should learn something about double blind tests.
This is where someone who plays the guitar very well, but hasn't been
informed what the test is all about, plays both instruments from
behind a curtin, and you try to tell which one is the $5000 guitar,
and which one is the $500 model. In this case, he can play the
same guitar into the $500 mike, and again into the $9000 mike, and if
a signiuficant number of audiophiles can tell which is which, then at
least, I will know there is some difference. Whether that difference
is worth $8500 is yet another story.

Where trhis analogy comes apart is that the value in a guitar is not
entirely the amount or quality of sound. Performance factors are a
large part of it too, and are incredibly variable.

geoff

I agree with that. If you are performing before a bunch of teen agers, then
maybe you will become more popular if you smash up all your instruments on
stage at the end of your performance. And, if that were the case, I would
expect you to purchase your equipment accordingly...:^)

[Bill Graham]

anahata wrote:
On Thu, 09 Dec 2010 23:13:59 -0800, Bill Graham wrote:

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

Most subscribers to this group know a LOT about DBTs and you won't win
many friends though being so patronising.

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

Never mind the listeners behind the curtain, ask the PLAYER which
guitar he prefers.

That is one clue to the difference between mics - a good audio
engineer might be able to get a good guitar sound with a cheap mic
but it's likely to be much harder work (time = money) fiddling with
mic position, room acoustics and (as a last resort) EQ.

It's reasonable question to ask why a $9000 mic costs so much more
than a $9 mic. Here are some clues:

- Find out who did the research work designing the mic (as oppposed to
copying someone else's design).

- Look at the pay and working conditions of the people employed to
make the mics.

- Go to the factory and see how much testing they do at every stage of
manufacture. And to what tolerances they measure everything.

- Find out how much the design for optimum performance is compromised
by the use of cheaper materials and processes

- Buy a pair of cheap mics and see how well matched they are. Buy an
expensive mic, than buy another of the same model 10 years later and
test them for matching. While you are at it, check whether the cheap
mic you got 10 years ago is even still being made.

That's not a comprehensive list, and you can pick holes in any of
those, but you surely get the general idea.

Well, you got me up to about $2000, but you are still a long ways away from
$9000. (Not strictly true, but I hope you get the general idea).

[Mike Rivers]

On 12/12/2010 3:20 PM, Cyberserf wrote:

I've played Ovations and other carbon composite guitars...they leave
me cold. The point about quality is, as you know, a good bit of the
"sound" comes from the player...and good quality instruments are
easier to play, thus, they sound better when played by a larger
variety of artists.

You can no longer generalize the sound of a guitar, and
that's why there are so many "natural" guitar sounds. You
wouldn't use a fine classical guitar to play rockabilly. You
wouldn't use a Telecaster to play mellow jazz. You wouldn't
use an Ovation to play in a back porch old time string band.
And, apropos of this discussion, you can't turn an Ovation
into Martin D-28 by choosing the right mic.

I really get annoyed when I hear a solo or near-solo
singer/songwriter where that buzzy no midrange plugged-in
acoustic guitar is the up front instrument. I wonder WHY IN
THE HECK IS HE PLAYING THAT CRUMMY SOUNDING GUITAR!!!????
Yes, that same guitar strummed in the right way fits right
in with a certain kind of band, giving the IMPRESSION that
someone is playing an acoustic guitar but that it doesn't
distract the listener. And, yes, that guitar will sound
about the same regardless of what mic is put on it, if it's
not simply plugged in with no mic.

It's not just the guitar and the mic any more, it's the
music and the production.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Anahata]

On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 03:21:28 -0800, Bill Graham wrote:

I am playing tunes from the 30's - 50's in a senior
citizens dance band, and playing around in my own living room with a
bunch of friends.

So there are some applications that can benefit from a $9000 mic, but
yours certainly isn't one of them.

--
Anahata
--/-- http://www.treewind.co.uk
+44 (0)1638 720444

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
"Bill Graham" wrote:

Richard Kuschel wrote:
On Dec 11, 6:52 pm, (hank alrich) wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:
My Martin is a 0018C, which was not their "top of the line"
classical when it was built. That was the 00028C.

Those guitars are intended to be strung with nylon, but they are not
"classical guitars" in the generally applied
not-born-of-a-marketing-department sense.

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

Martin's only real "classical"l guitars were the N10 (mahogany) and
N20(rosewood).Tthese had classical body shapes and neck width which
the 00 series guitars do not.

They also had a more "classical" sound than the 00 series nylon strung
guitars.

My 0018C has a 2" wide at the nut neck. AFAIK, this is pretty standard.
Perhaps you are thinking of some Martin designations that have been made in
the intervening years? Both the 00028C, and the 0018C were definitely
considered to be classical guitars back in the late 60's.

Not my recollection at all. There is a difference between a classical
instrument and a guitar that uses nylon strings. There are several
other aspects of construction (bracing, neck relief, etc.) that differ.
For example, the nylon string Martin that Noel of Peter Paul and Mary
used for years has a sound that is very different from classical guitars.

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers writes:
snip

I really get annoyed when I hear a solo or near-solo
singer/songwriter where that buzzy no midrange plugged-in
acoustic guitar is the up front instrument. I wonder WHY IN
THE HECK IS HE PLAYING THAT CRUMMY SOUNDING GUITAR!!!????
Yes, that same guitar strummed in the right way fits right
in with a certain kind of band, giving the IMPRESSION that
someone is playing an acoustic guitar but that it doesn't
distract the listener. And, yes, that guitar will sound
about the same regardless of what mic is put on it, if it's
not simply plugged in with no mic.
RIght, but that's the only sound a lot of folks really
recognize as an "acoustic guitar" sound, because their
musical frames of reference are quite narrow. They've never
listened to anything except close mic multitrack overdubbed
rock style music, even if they call it country. I don't
understand how it can be country if it's nothing but a
straight 4 time signature, no shuffle, no swing, no waltz
and sounds like the bad rockabilly I tuned out years ago.
But, that's another subject grin.

It's not just the guitar and the mic any more, it's the
music and the production.
Right, but you have to understand music, and production, and
have a wider frame of reference than a lot of the folks out
there have today. Which is why, in recent thread on panning
I suggested that the original poster go listen to some large
ensembles play sans sound reinforcement. THere are certain
principles that work, just because they work.





Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[Ty Ford]

On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 14:31:13 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote
(in article ):

Rick Ruskin wrote:

Some friends brought over the Curtis Technology AL-2 Tube mic system
for me to check out about 10 years ago. They were AWFUL! List on
those was $3000.00 for a stereo pair.

Those had no high end response to speak of, yeah. And the sad part is
that if the engineers had done the math before they selected the diaphragm
material they did, they should have been able to predict that. So maybe
that's what they were aiming for... or maybe they made a mistake.
--scott


Curtis Technology as in the UK company that does DSP work?

Regards,

Ty Ford

--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[rakmanenuff]

On Dec 13, 12:38*pm, Mike Rivers wrote:

You wouldn't use a Telecaster to play mellow jazz.

Ted Greene used a Tele to play mellow jazz

[PStamler]

On Dec 13, 6:38*am, Mike Rivers wrote:
You
wouldn't use a Telecaster to play mellow jazz.

Come to St. Louis sometime, and I'll introduce you to Steve Schenkel,
who does exactly that -- wonderfully. I've never figured out how.

Peace,
Paul

[[email protected]]

On 2010-12-13 said:
You
wouldn't use a Telecaster to play mellow jazz.
Come to St. Louis sometime, and I'll introduce you to Steve
Schenkel, who does exactly that -- wonderfully. I've never figured
out how.

could he have one of those rare teles I saw back in the
'80's that had humbuckers? A buddy of mine bought one in a
music store in Des MOines, Ia. around 1985-86 like that. I
used to borrow it when I"d play two electric guitars with a
buddy of mine, because I could get that Gibson humbucker
sound without the weight. I"d also borrow it for recording
sessions, because he'd play some parts on the humbucker
tele, others on his standard tele.


Regards,




Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[Mike Rivers]

On 12/13/2010 1:42 PM, rakmanenuff wrote:

Ted Greene used a Tele to play mellow jazz

But would YOU? I'd rather play something like a Super 400
if I had one.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Mike Rivers]

On 12/13/2010 1:51 PM, PStamler wrote:

Come to St. Louis sometime, and I'll introduce you to Steve Schenkel,
who does exactly that -- wonderfully. I've never figured out how.

OK, I guess that was a bad example, or an example of the
fact that if you know what you want, you can probably do it
with the tools you have at hand. I've recorded a lot of
things with mics that cost less than $500, too.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Richard Kuschel]

On Dec 13, 3:52*am, "Bill Graham" wrote:
Richard Kuschel wrote:
On Dec 11, 6:52 pm, (hank alrich) wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:
My Martin is a 0018C, which was not their "top of the line"
classical when it was built. That was the 00028C.

Those guitars are intended to be strung with nylon, but they are not
"classical guitars" in the generally applied
not-born-of-a-marketing-department sense.

--
shut up and play your guitar
*http://hankalrich.com/http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'sliste....

Martin's *only real "classical"l guitars were the N10 (mahogany) and
N20(rosewood).Tthese had classical body shapes and neck width which
the 00 series guitars do not.

They also had a more "classical" sound than the 00 series nylon strung
guitars.

My 0018C has a 2" wide at the nut neck. AFAIK, this is pretty standard.
Perhaps you are thinking of some Martin designations that have been made in
the intervening years? Both the 00028C, and the 0018C were definitely
considered to be classical guitars back in the late 60's.

Actually the necks of the N10/N20 Martins may have been slightly
wider. It's been 40 years since I touched one.

The body shape and fan bracing was "classical" . Neither a 00 or 000
has the traditional classical body style or dimensions

The most famous of the Classical N series (though not played that
way) is Willie Nelson's N20 "Trigger". That guitar belongs in the
Smithsonian.

[geoff]

Bill Graham wrote:

I agree with that. If you are performing before a bunch of teen
agers, then maybe you will become more popular if you smash up all
your instruments on stage at the end of your performance. And, if
that were the case, I would expect you to purchase your equipment
accordingly...:^)

I was referring to performance factor regarding the actually playing and
response of he instrument in many different parameters.

geoff

[Bill Graham]

Mike Rivers wrote:
On 12/12/2010 3:20 PM, Cyberserf wrote:

I've played Ovations and other carbon composite guitars...they leave
me cold. The point about quality is, as you know, a good bit of the
"sound" comes from the player...and good quality instruments are
easier to play, thus, they sound better when played by a larger
variety of artists.

You can no longer generalize the sound of a guitar, and
that's why there are so many "natural" guitar sounds. You
wouldn't use a fine classical guitar to play rockabilly. You
wouldn't use a Telecaster to play mellow jazz. You wouldn't
use an Ovation to play in a back porch old time string band.
And, apropos of this discussion, you can't turn an Ovation
into Martin D-28 by choosing the right mic.

I really get annoyed when I hear a solo or near-solo
singer/songwriter where that buzzy no midrange plugged-in
acoustic guitar is the up front instrument. I wonder WHY IN
THE HECK IS HE PLAYING THAT CRUMMY SOUNDING GUITAR!!!????
Yes, that same guitar strummed in the right way fits right
in with a certain kind of band, giving the IMPRESSION that
someone is playing an acoustic guitar but that it doesn't
distract the listener. And, yes, that guitar will sound
about the same regardless of what mic is put on it, if it's
not simply plugged in with no mic.

It's not just the guitar and the mic any more, it's the
music and the production.

I don't dispute anything you say. All I'm suggesting is that the application
of some science to the effort can't hurt. Can't you envision the study, with
modern scientific instruments of the sounds that eminate from the various
guitars that exist in the world today, and the engineered building of an
instrument, using any modern or classical material available, that can
reproduce any and/or all of these sounds more cheaply or easily or both,
than how they are created now? IOW, build a better guitar by throwing away
any pre-conceived notions, and by approaching the problem from a purely
scientific respective by first identifying the sound you want, and then
producing it in the most economical way. And, in any case, why would this be
wrong? I mean, if someone wants to do it, well, why not? Sure, you may not
want to play it when its done. It might not have all that pretty rosewood on
the back, or that ebony fretboard that you are so fond of caressing with
your left hand. But it might sound just like a $5000 guitar and only cost
$1000, and that's something!

[Bill Graham]

anahata wrote:
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 03:21:28 -0800, Bill Graham wrote:

I am playing tunes from the 30's - 50's in a senior
citizens dance band, and playing around in my own living room with a
bunch of friends.

So there are some applications that can benefit from a $9000 mic, but
yours certainly isn't one of them.

That's for sure. I would have many other ways to spend 9 big ones. I think I
would have Monette build me a four valve flugelhorn.....:^)

[Rick Ruskin]

On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 16:49:34 -0800, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

Mike Rivers wrote:
On 12/12/2010 3:20 PM, Cyberserf wrote:

I've played Ovations and other carbon composite guitars...they leave
me cold. The point about quality is, as you know, a good bit of the
"sound" comes from the player...and good quality instruments are
easier to play, thus, they sound better when played by a larger
variety of artists.

You can no longer generalize the sound of a guitar, and
that's why there are so many "natural" guitar sounds. You
wouldn't use a fine classical guitar to play rockabilly. You
wouldn't use a Telecaster to play mellow jazz. You wouldn't
use an Ovation to play in a back porch old time string band.
And, apropos of this discussion, you can't turn an Ovation
into Martin D-28 by choosing the right mic.

I really get annoyed when I hear a solo or near-solo
singer/songwriter where that buzzy no midrange plugged-in
acoustic guitar is the up front instrument. I wonder WHY IN
THE HECK IS HE PLAYING THAT CRUMMY SOUNDING GUITAR!!!????
Yes, that same guitar strummed in the right way fits right
in with a certain kind of band, giving the IMPRESSION that
someone is playing an acoustic guitar but that it doesn't
distract the listener. And, yes, that guitar will sound
about the same regardless of what mic is put on it, if it's
not simply plugged in with no mic.

It's not just the guitar and the mic any more, it's the
music and the production.

I don't dispute anything you say. All I'm suggesting is that the application
of some science to the effort can't hurt. Can't you envision the study, with
modern scientific instruments of the sounds that eminate from the various
guitars that exist in the world today, and the engineered building of an
instrument, using any modern or classical material available, that can
reproduce any and/or all of these sounds more cheaply or easily or both,
than how they are created now? IOW, build a better guitar by throwing away
any pre-conceived notions, and by approaching the problem from a purely
scientific respective by first identifying the sound you want, and then
producing it in the most economical way. And, in any case, why would this be
wrong? I mean, if someone wants to do it, well, why not? Sure, you may not
want to play it when its done. It might not have all that pretty rosewood on
the back, or that ebony fretboard that you are so fond of caressing with
your left hand. But it might sound just like a $5000 guitar and only cost
$1000, and that's something!


Hey Bill,

Nobody here is demanding or even requesting for that matter, that you
spend any amount of money on anything. If you don't think expensive
mics and guitars are worth their prices, then shut the **** up and
don't buy either.
Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://liondogmusic.com
http://www.myspace.com/rickruskin

[Bill Graham]

Rick Ruskin wrote:
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 16:49:34 -0800, "Bill Graham" Hey Bill,

Nobody here is demanding or even requesting for that matter, that you
spend any amount of money on anything. If you don't think expensive
mics and guitars are worth their prices, then shut the **** up and
don't buy either.
Rick Ruskin

Oh come on now.....You have been enjoying the discussion....Havent you?
Come on now, havent you? Is that a smile I see there?