[Mxsmanic]

vdubreeze writes:

If it feels in your hands like if the first time it slid off the chair
onto the floor it wouldn't survive, it's consumer.

A lot of gear marketed specifically to consumers can easily survive this these
days. Does that make it professional?

I recall a small Nikon digital camera (which I still have, and which still
works) that made endless unplanned falls to the floor without ever showing any
damage at all. Nevertheless, it was marketed as a consumer camera, with a
consumer price.

And if it costs
$100 more to make the same widget sturdy enough to not have to handle
like it's made of eggshells no pro is going to think that's $100
stupidly charged.

I suspect the H4n would easily survive a fall to the floor, although I'm not
about to try it. But so would an iPod, or most cell phones.

[vdubreeze]

On Mar 16, 11:32*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
vdubreeze writes:
If it feels in your hands like if the first time it slid off the chair
onto the floor it wouldn't survive, it's consumer.

A lot of gear marketed specifically to consumers can easily survive this these
days. Does that make it professional?

You're just trolling. Could you not tell I was using a literary
device? If I had a ****ty 50 cent cheese grater and it survived a
chair drop would that make it a professional chef's grater? What's
your point?


I recall a small Nikon digital camera (which I still have, and which still
works) that made endless unplanned falls to the floor without ever showing any
damage at all. Nevertheless, it was marketed as a consumer camera, with a
consumer price.


Congrats. If you get a professional photography gig and use that and
it takes amazing enough pictures and everyone is thrilled then you
have a professional tool. Otherwise you still have a point and shoot
camera that isn't a professional tool. Once again, surviving the fall
doesn't magically transform it into something it wasn't before it
fell. It is still what it is. You still have to do your thing with
it.

If it breaks easily, it's not pro. But not breaking does not confer
pro status upon it.


And if it costs
$100 more to make the same widget sturdy enough to not have to handle
like it's made of eggshells no pro is going to think that's $100
stupidly charged.

I suspect the H4n would easily survive a fall to the floor, although I'm not
about to try it. But so would an iPod, or most cell phones.

Oh Jesus. So would a toothbrush. So what? ; /

[vdubreeze]

On Mar 16, 11:29*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:

You haven't answered the question.

I've explained what "professional" really means: it's the best you can afford,
or anything beyond what you can afford. Anything less expensive is "amateur"
or "consumer." There are no other standards.

You've only explained that you have a definition of what
"professional" means that no one shares.

[Mxsmanic]

vdubreeze writes:

You've only explained that you have a definition of what
"professional" means that no one shares.

Most people don't want to admit that this is the correct definition. Everyone
wants to believe that whatever he has is "pro" and that anything even slightly
less is "amateur." There's no correlation with any other variables.

Advancing technology blurs and erases any objective distinction between
professional and consumer equipment. The remaining distinctions are
subjective, and driven by marketing and ego.

In the early days of a new technology, the first pieces of consumer gear are
dramatically inferior to the professional gear, because it's so expensive to
achieve a reasonable level of quality with a brand-new technology. But as the
technology matures, that difference evaporates. Eventually the "consumer" and
"pro" gear are difficult to tell apart, and in fact the equipment all lies
upon a continuum from the cheapest to the best, with no clear demarcation
between professional and consumer gear. And so the distinction ceases to
exist, except in the minds of those who depend upon the money they've spent on
gear to validate their illusions of competence and talent.

The proof is in the final result. For well-established technologies, the
results created by "consumer" gear may be indistinguishable from the results
created by "pro" gear.

[Mxsmanic]

vdubreeze writes:

You're just trolling.

No, I'm serious. I'm tired of seeing people talk about "pro" vs. "consumer"
gear as if there were some bona fide, bright-line distinction between them.
I'm tired of seeing people with ego issues dismissing what someone else uses
as "not professional" because it cost less to buy.

Congrats. If you get a professional photography gig and use that and
it takes amazing enough pictures and everyone is thrilled then you
have a professional tool.

What makes a photography gig "professional"?

Otherwise you still have a point and shoot camera that isn't a professional
tool.

If you use the same camera for "professional" and "amateur" purposes, is it a
professional camera or not?

If it breaks easily, it's not pro.

What counts as "easily"?

But not breaking does not confer pro status upon it.

So what does?

Oh Jesus. So would a toothbrush. So what?

So talking about surviving a fall as the criterion of "professional" quality
doesn't really make any sense.

[Trevor]

"vdubreeze" wrote in message
...
On Mar 16, 2:53 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Over the years I've only been able to come up with one fully consistent
definition for "professional": Something is "professional" if it costs the
most you can afford to pay, or more. If it costs less, it's "consumer" or
"amateur" gear. Nothing else about the equipment matters.

}If it feels in your hands like if the first time it slid off the chair
onto the floor it wouldn't survive, it's consumer. And if it costs
$100 more to make the same widget sturdy enough to not have to handle
like it's made of eggshells no pro is going to think that's $100
}stupidly charged.


True, but I don't think I've ever seen any real pro equipment for only $100
more than the consumer stuff. Perhaps you mean a $10 Vs $110 item I guess
:-)
(Now compare the cost of a Nagra digital recorder and a Zoom! :-)

Trevor.

[Mxsmanic]

Trevor writes:

True, but I don't think I've ever seen any real pro equipment for only $100
more than the consumer stuff.

The increment in price tends to be much larger than the increment in
manufacturing cost. A "professional" camera with a metal body may cost ten
times more than a "consumer" camera with a plastic body, but the metal body
itself doesn't cost ten times more to produce than the plastic body.

"Professional" equipment often has very generous margins and very high price
tags, in part because that's what the market will bear, and in part because
that's what some "pros" want and expect, because making the equipment
expensive helps to keep it out of reach of any ordinary consumer or amateur.
"Prosumer" gear (whatever that is) shows the same phenomenon.

[Mike Rivers]

On 3/16/2012 11:26 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:

Nevertheless, I'm sure there are people around who have paid even more for
something else and thus consider the Nagra to be "non-professional" equipment.

In a forum like there there will be someone who will put
anything down as not good enough for them. But among a group
of those really in the know, I doubt that anyone would
consider a Nagra "non-professional" in the right context.
People haven't replaced the traditional sound cart with a
Zoom in a pocket yet, but reporters probably no longer carry
a Nagra to do an interview.

I like sturdy equipment, although it tends to be expensive (and often
overpriced).

No, it's not overpriced. It just may be more expensive than
you personally can justify. An Applie iPad is overpriced.

But that's a sliding scale, since "the worse possible circumstances" could be
all sorts of things.

And sometimes you know you'll be working in circumstances
where there's nothing that will environmentally affect your
gear. But still, SOME "professional" gear is less
persnickety than SOME everyday gear. And other times it's
the other way around. But one thing about "professional"
gear is that it can nearly always be repaired (within reason
- not much point in trying to repair a Nagra that's been
flattened by a large truck) and everyday gear is, and is
priced as throwaway.

Maybe the Nagra can tolerate a fall from a building--but does equipment have
to be able to tolerate such a fall in order to be "professional"?

No. It just has to make you FEEL like a professional when
you're using it.

--
"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 3/16/2012 11:29 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:

I've explained what "professional" really means: it's the best you can afford,
or anything beyond what you can afford. Anything less expensive is "amateur"
or "consumer." There are no other standards.

I suppose you're entitled to define it however you choose.
Have you checked a dictionary? While some "professional"
gear is indeed more expensive than devices that can perform
the same functions at lower cost, cost shouldn't be the
defining quality.

Lots of professional engineers use $100 microphones, but
what makes them professional is that they also have $2,000
microphones that they can use when it's appropriate, and
they're experienced enough to know how to choose which tool
to use for the job.


--
"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 3/17/2012 1:07 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:

Everyone
wants to believe that whatever he has is "pro" and that anything even slightly
less is "amateur." There's no correlation with any other variables.

Where in the world do you get THAT idea?

Advancing technology blurs and erases any objective distinction between
professional and consumer equipment.

I think that there's some truth to the basis of that
statement. It means that if it's your choice, you can do
"professional quality" work using less expensive tools.
There's a lot of really crappy music recorded in bedrooms
using inexpensive mics and a computer program, but there's
also a lot of very well recorded music using the same kind
of gear.

Someone whose regular job is, for example, recording
concerts for hire, might have brought a Nagra along 30 years
ago (I was doing it with a Revox, but it wasn't my full time
professional) but today is more likely to bring a modestly
priced laptop computer and a decent quality audio interface.
Or maybe even a Zoom H4n. But what makes him professional is
that he has another one handy in case the primary one fails.
And spare batteries. Many people who carried Nagras couldn't
afford that.

In the early days of a new technology, the first pieces of consumer gear are
dramatically inferior to the professional gear, because it's so expensive to
achieve a reasonable level of quality with a brand-new technology. But as the
technology matures, that difference evaporates.

I wouldn't say that they were dramatically inferior - unless
you're going back to the days of the portable recorder that
had to use low bit rate MP3 compression because it had only
16 MB of memory. I think it's dramatically inferior (from a
professional viewpoint) that my Zoom H2 really can't be used
with external mics without also using an external preamp.
That's why I have a Korg MR-1000 as well. But I have a
couple of friends who take a Zoom H4n to paying gigs where
the client would be very disappointed if he didn't get a
recording. They studied what was available, made a choice,
and now they're standing by that choice and are confident
that it's as good as whatever they were using before, and
better in some respects. "Professional" is understanding the
job needed to be done, deciding what's necessary to do the
job, and taking care that the risks are covered.

Eventually the "consumer" and "pro" gear are difficult
to tell apart

What's more important is how do you tell the consumer and
the professional apart? Today, a grocery store checkout
clerk by day can be a moneymaking songwriter on his kitchen
table in the evenings, using a laptop computer, a $200
microphone, and a lot of talent and inspiration (priceless).
And any boob with $10,000 can buy a Nagra 5 and make a
lousy recording of a wedding.

The proof is in the final result. For well-established technologies, the
results created by "consumer" gear may be indistinguishable from the results
created by "pro" gear.

Agreed. But some gear won't work in some circumstances. The
professional knows what to choose. The amateur uses what he
has and can afford to accept failure now and then as a
tradeoff for having only one inexpensive (for example here)
recorder rather than deciding which is the best recorder to
take to the gig (renting one if need be).


--
"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 3/17/2012 1:11 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:

No, I'm serious. I'm tired of seeing people talk about "pro" vs. "consumer"
gear as if there were some bona fide, bright-line distinction between them.

So am I. Why bother? If you want a professional job done,
hire a professional and he'll use whatever gear he believes
will get the job done. But I don't believe in calling anyone
"professional" or "amateur" based on the gear he owns or uses.


--
"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

[Neil Gould]

Mike Rivers wrote:
On 3/16/2012 4:00 PM, Neil Gould wrote:

The reviews I've seen so far say things like, "At last! The recorder
we've been waiting for! Well, almost."
http://transom.org/?p=21768

That's a pretty comprehensive review. It seems that the
reviewer considers the input gain and noise to be pretty
significant, and I would think that if it's truly out of the
ordinary, it could pose a problem for nature recording.

Capturing nature sounds is tough business without a LOT of gain, so the
question is, pretty significant noise compared to what? The H4n also has
audible noise at high gain levels, but it's not unreasonable for most uses.

I've found that with most of these recorders, while there's
a lot of stuff on the menu, in actual use, you don't need to
make changes very often. I've seen that "Peak reduction"
mode on another recorder that I reviewed, maybe it was
another TASCAM, and I didn't care for it. It's useful if the
band (or the woodpecker) continually gets louder, but I
think I'd rather live with a momentary overload that doesn't
repeat than have my recording level lowered and have it stay
there.

These units have a lot of modes that I'd probably never use. They can be
ignored as long as they don't preempt the modes that I want.

Give it a try. Buy it from a dealer who will let you return
it if it doesn't meet your needs.

I probably will do that.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Marc Wielage" wrote in message
.com...
On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:41:01 -0700, vdubreeze wrote
(in article
):

This I don't know, but my friend, a pro video shooter who has his FCP
cubicle 10 feet from my ProTools cubicle here, had his newish H4 go
belly up in the middle of a shoot...
------------------------------snip------------------------------

No "pro video shooter" should be relying on something like a Zoom H4 for
anything but a very casual backup, in my opinion.

--MFW


Boy did I come into the backside of this controversy!

But since I am a pro wedding shooter, I must add to the tonnage. We
frequently use a little Casio digital voice recorder that is the size of a
pack of gum, attached to a Sony lavalier, stuck in the pocket of the groom
to get the vows at a wedding. Nothing like it! First, using some clumsy
wireless mike and transmitter would be bulkier and would give us fwip fwap
or bzzz bzzz every once in a while. Secondly, it would require one of the
video cameras to waste a track on the wireless feed. Third, digital audio
will stay in sync with digital video all day long, so editing is a snap and
we have one more source for the whole ceremony. We use it mainly for the
vows, but if the church sound system sucks, we can usually get the minister
and the bride and groom a lot better from the groom's lapel than from the
camera mikes.

PS, we don't like taking sound from the church sound system either, because
of mismatches and the simple fact that all it picks up is the minister and
the music, and we like to have all ambient sounds as heard by the
congregation. The vows are a special problem because they are usually not
heard by anyone but the bride and groom and maybe the minister, so the "on
board" recorder is the surest solution, and the sound is top notch.

And for those among you who drop their recorders from buildings, I would
vote for the Casio with no moving parts. A case in point, I taped one to the
podium for a graduation one fine morning. Led the mike cord up to the top
and taped it to the podium mike boom. Unbeknownwt to me at the time, the
little step stool that was hinged to the podium for short people, when
folded back into the cavity of the podium, was just wide enough to wipe my
recorder off the surface where I taped it and disconnect it from my mike
cable. Halfway thru the ceremony, sure enough, clump thump POP, and my
wonderful sound became a little more distant - but it did not stop! What
happened was the recorder got popped onto the floor under the inside of the
podium, and kept on recording with its own internal microphone!

The Casios are going for about $79.95, if you want something better than a
Nagra.

Gary Eickmeier

[Scott Dorsey]

Mxsmanic wrote:

Advancing technology blurs and erases any objective distinction between
professional and consumer equipment. The remaining distinctions are
subjective, and driven by marketing and ego.

The professional vs. consumer split has nothing to do with technology.

The proof is in the final result. For well-established technologies, the
results created by "consumer" gear may be indistinguishable from the results
created by "pro" gear.

Sure, but results aren't what make it professional. How easy it is to get
those results, how reliable it is getting them, and what happens when something
goes wrong are what makes it professional.

I hate to say it, but it doesn't sound like you have actually used any
professional gear. I recommend trying some. It's a very different
experience than what you seem to be used to.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

Mxsmanic wrote:

The increment in price tends to be much larger than the increment in
manufacturing cost. A "professional" camera with a metal body may cost ten
times more than a "consumer" camera with a plastic body, but the metal body
itself doesn't cost ten times more to produce than the plastic body.

Yes. This is due to the wonders of mass production. If you make a million
of something, you can make it a lot cheaper than if you make a hundred of
them. The engineering and tooling costs are amortized over far more units,
and you have a lot more buying power for materials.

The additional consequence of this is that, in order to bring volumes up,
consumer audio gear tends to be designed to do everything. If you make a
console that can be used for PA and for recording both, you can sell a lot
more of them than if you make a console that can just be used for one
specific recording application. Selling a lot of them is your goal, because
the more you sell, the cheaper you can make each one.

"Professional" equipment often has very generous margins and very high price
tags, in part because that's what the market will bear, and in part because
that's what some "pros" want and expect, because making the equipment
expensive helps to keep it out of reach of any ordinary consumer or amateur.
"Prosumer" gear (whatever that is) shows the same phenomenon.

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


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

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

[...]
How does one distinguish unambiguously and consistently between "professional"
and "non-professional" equipment?

If it has the word "Professional" on it ...it's non-professional.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Rivers writes:

In a forum like there there will be someone who will put
anything down as not good enough for them. But among a group
of those really in the know, I doubt that anyone would
consider a Nagra "non-professional" in the right context.

Nagra is probably not a good example because so few people would consider it
anything but professional gear.

No, it's not overpriced. It just may be more expensive than
you personally can justify. An Applie iPad is overpriced.

Just about anything aimed at "professional" buyers is vastly overpriced. The
margins are very generous. Not only are professionals willing to pay more
because they can treat it as a business expense, but many of them also believe
that paying huge amounts of money for something means that they are getting
the best of the best, and are better than other "pros" whom they look down
upon because of their smaller budgets.

There are gearheads in every profession.

And sometimes you know you'll be working in circumstances
where there's nothing that will environmentally affect your
gear. But still, SOME "professional" gear is less
persnickety than SOME everyday gear.

Sure, but that's a very blurry boundary.

And other times it's the other way around. But one thing
about "professional" gear is that it can nearly always be
repaired (within reason - not much point in trying to repair
a Nagra that's been flattened by a large truck) and everyday
gear is, and is priced as throwaway.

Here again, while this is true very generally, it's a blurry distinction. A
Maytag washing machine can be repaired many times, even though it's just
consumer gear. A high-end computer server, used for "professional" purposes,
is likely to be thrown away if it fails.

No. It just has to make you FEEL like a professional when
you're using it.

Ah. Perhaps that's the key. And one thing that often makes people feel
professional is spending large amounts of money on equipment.

If having fancy equipment made people pros, then in the olden days, when I had
lots of money, I would have been able to fill my house with Oscars and Emmys.
But I found out the hard way that even the best gear doesn't replace skill or
talent--although it was still kinda fun to have the best gear.

It's like people who buy the fastest PC they can find, overclock it, and then
use it only to run performance tests. Or people who buy fancy cameras and
lenses and spend all their time shooting test charts with them.

[Scott Dorsey]

Mxsmanic wrote:

Maybe the Nagra can tolerate a fall from a building--but does equipment have
to be able to tolerate such a fall in order to be "professional"?

Professional equipment is designed to do one thing, and to do one thing
well. It's not designed to be everything to everybody. It's designed to
do one job so reliably that you don't have to make excuses for it.

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

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

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Rivers writes:

Where in the world do you get THAT idea?

From just about everyone, or at least just about everyone of male gender.
(Women seem far less interested in gear and far more interested on what can be
done with it, although that varies a lot by individual.)

I think that there's some truth to the basis of that
statement. It means that if it's your choice, you can do
"professional quality" work using less expensive tools.
There's a lot of really crappy music recorded in bedrooms
using inexpensive mics and a computer program, but there's
also a lot of very well recorded music using the same kind
of gear.

Exactly. And if a person is skilled in the use of his inexpensive equipment,
will anyone really know that he is using inexpensive equipment?

And phenomena like bootleg music recordings show that consumers often either
don't know or don't care (or both) about the equipment used to record
something.

Someone whose regular job is, for example, recording
concerts for hire, might have brought a Nagra along 30 years
ago (I was doing it with a Revox, but it wasn't my full time
professional) but today is more likely to bring a modestly
priced laptop computer and a decent quality audio interface.
Or maybe even a Zoom H4n. But what makes him professional is
that he has another one handy in case the primary one fails.
And spare batteries. Many people who carried Nagras couldn't
afford that.

Then, by that logic, the people carrying Nagras weren't pros, because they
didn't have back-up equipment.

Technology can change things. I suspect a lot of consumer gear can survive
falls and abuse that "pro" gear from decades back could never have tolerated.

The little Handycam that I have produces better images than the pro gear that
I paid tens of thousands of dollars for 20 years ago. That's a price ration of
at least 100 to 1, and a quality ratio of 10 to 1, for a total improvement of
1000 to 1, even though the old stuff was "pro" and the new stuff is
"consumer."

As technology advances, eventually everything works so well that the
distinction between "pro" and "amateur" practically disappears, particularly
in terms of final results.

I wouldn't say that they were dramatically inferior - unless
you're going back to the days of the portable recorder that
had to use low bit rate MP3 compression because it had only
16 MB of memory.

I'm thinking of--for example--when I was little, and I had a phonograph record
player, and my grandfather had a very expensive reel-to-reel stereo tape
system (I don't recall the specifics). My record player was very obviously
inferior to the system he had. There could be little doubt that his system was
"pro"--so to speak--whereas mine was not.

But today, after decades of advances in audio recording, the music I hear with
a MP3 player is hard to distinguish in any way at all from recordings made
with equipment costing thousands of dollars. If there's a difference, it's not
so much in the equipment used as in the way the "pros" used it.

If I buy the fancy equipment, I still won't get pro results because I don't
know enough about how to make the best of the gear. But a seasoned pro will be
able to do better with even cheap equipment, since he'll know how to use it
best. In the early days of a new technology, that cannot happen because the
consumer gear is just too inferior, but as tecnologies mature, the only real
difference left is in the persons using them.

I think it's dramatically inferior (from a
professional viewpoint) that my Zoom H2 really can't be used
with external mics without also using an external preamp.
That's why I have a Korg MR-1000 as well. But I have a
couple of friends who take a Zoom H4n to paying gigs where
the client would be very disappointed if he didn't get a
recording. They studied what was available, made a choice,
and now they're standing by that choice and are confident
that it's as good as whatever they were using before, and
better in some respects. "Professional" is understanding the
job needed to be done, deciding what's necessary to do the
job, and taking care that the risks are covered.

Yes! So it's scarcely a question of gear at all. There is no "pro" or
"consumer," there is only "do."

What's more important is how do you tell the consumer and
the professional apart? Today, a grocery store checkout
clerk by day can be a moneymaking songwriter on his kitchen
table in the evenings, using a laptop computer, a $200
microphone, and a lot of talent and inspiration (priceless).
And any boob with $10,000 can buy a Nagra 5 and make a
lousy recording of a wedding.

Yup. And while neither situation is common, they happen often enough that
talking about "pro" vs. "consumer" gear is often a waste of time.

Agreed. But some gear won't work in some circumstances. The
professional knows what to choose. The amateur uses what he
has and can afford to accept failure now and then as a
tradeoff for having only one inexpensive (for example here)
recorder rather than deciding which is the best recorder to
take to the gig (renting one if need be).

Maybe. But pros can't afford to have the ideal equipment for each situation,
either. And if they don't have the right stuff, they have to make do with
whatever they have on hand, just like consumers. So ultimately the difference
comes back to the person using the gear, not the gear itself.

I'd rather hire a pro to use my H4n than hire an amateur to use his Nagra. The
former would almost certainly get better results than the latter.

[Mxsmanic]

Scott Dorsey writes:

The professional vs. consumer split has nothing to do with technology.

Right. That is, it has nothing to do with equipment.

Sure, but results aren't what make it professional.

Really? Then why do people pay pros lots of money for results?

How easy it is to get those results, how reliable it is getting them,
and what happens when something goes wrong are what makes it professional.

All of which depend a lot more on the person using the equipment than on the
equipment itself.

I hate to say it, but it doesn't sound like you have actually used any
professional gear. I recommend trying some. It's a very different
experience than what you seem to be used to.

I haven't used much in the way of professional audio gear, but I've used a lot
of such gear in other domains over the years. Using so-called professional
equipment is usually a lot more enjoyable than using so-called consumer
equipment ... but these days it's very hard to draw a clear line between the
two for audio-visual equipment.

The widespread use of digital systems has had a tremendous levelling effect,
since it eliminates a lot of analog gear that is extremely sensitive to
manufacturing tolerances and was formerly the source of wide differences
between "consumer" and "pro" equipment.

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Rivers writes:

I suppose you're entitled to define it however you choose.
Have you checked a dictionary? While some "professional"
gear is indeed more expensive than devices that can perform
the same functions at lower cost, cost shouldn't be the
defining quality.

It shouldn't be, but it usually is.

Lots of professional engineers use $100 microphones, but
what makes them professional is that they also have $2,000
microphones that they can use when it's appropriate, and
they're experienced enough to know how to choose which tool
to use for the job.

Not all professionals can afford $2000 microphones, but that doesn't make them
any worse than those who can.

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Rivers writes:

So am I. Why bother? If you want a professional job done,
hire a professional and he'll use whatever gear he believes
will get the job done. But I don't believe in calling anyone
"professional" or "amateur" based on the gear he owns or uses.

So there's no reason to make such comparisons with respect to a DR-40 or H2 or
H4n.

[Mxsmanic]

Scott Dorsey writes:

Yes. This is due to the wonders of mass production.

Or at least that's what manufacturers would like you to believe. Sometimes
it's true. Often it's not.

I remember selling equipment that was made in only very small quantities
(dozens of units), and yet we still had 95% margins on that equipment.
Customers didn't know, and some of them didn't care.

The additional consequence of this is that, in order to bring volumes up,
consumer audio gear tends to be designed to do everything. If you make a
console that can be used for PA and for recording both, you can sell a lot
more of them than if you make a console that can just be used for one
specific recording application. Selling a lot of them is your goal, because
the more you sell, the cheaper you can make each one.

I'll partially agree. But the manufacturing process for making a million units
is often identical to that used to make ten million units, so often the
all-in-one design is simply designed to sell more units, and not to lower the
cost of producing them.

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

What do the executives at Nagra drive?

[Mxsmanic]

Adrian Tuddenham writes:

If it has the word "Professional" on it ...it's non-professional.

I agree with that--it has been on my checklist for ages. Professionals don't
need to be told that they are using professional equipment, neither do they
need to advertise it to anyone else.

I'm happy to report that my H4n doesn't say "pro" anywhere. In fact, it calls
itself a "Handy Recorder," which implies a certain modesty about the unit on
the part of the manufacturer.

[Scott Dorsey]

Mxsmanic wrote:
Scott Dorsey writes:

Sure, but results aren't what make it professional.

Really? Then why do people pay pros lots of money for results?

Customers pay professionals for results.

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

I can get a perfectly good mix with a Mackie console, but it's going to
take me a whole lot longer than it would on my DDA. With the DDA, there
is plenty of headroom... I can just pot things up and not have to worry
about babysitting levels. With the Mackie, the sound quality changes
with the operating point, so I spend more time worrying about gain structure
and less time mixing.

This means if you were to pay me to mix on the Mackie, it would cost you
a lot more money than if you were to pay me to mix on the DDA. Professional
equipment saves time, and when time is money, that means it saves money.

How easy it is to get those results, how reliable it is getting them,
and what happens when something goes wrong are what makes it professional.

All of which depend a lot more on the person using the equipment than on the
equipment itself.

That's true, there are professional people and not-professional people,
but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about equipment.

The widespread use of digital systems has had a tremendous levelling effect,
since it eliminates a lot of analog gear that is extremely sensitive to
manufacturing tolerances and was formerly the source of wide differences
between "consumer" and "pro" equipment.

I wish that were the case. Now we have the same differences in software.
--scott

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

[Mike Rivers]

On 3/17/2012 10:15 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:

Not all professionals can afford $2000 microphones, but that doesn't make them
any worse than those who can.

Not all professionals can afford to own a collection of
$2,000 microphones, but any professional who's professional
enough to price his work properly will know when one is
called for and can afford to rent one when he needs it. You
decide when ownership is more cost effective than rental
when you see how your work is going. That's another sign of
a professional.

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

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

[Mxsmanic]

Scott Dorsey writes:

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

How many field recorders can survive such a fall?

[Mxsmanic]

Scott Dorsey writes:

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

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

That's true, there are professional people and not-professional people,
but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about equipment.

My point is that there is no clear distinction between pro and consumer
equipment, particularly for mature technologies. There may well be equipment
that is very obviously consumer or very obviously professional, but it's a
continuum rather than a black and white distinction. And in the middle,
there's lots of argument by people who believe that whatever they have is pro,
and anything less is consumer.

I wish that were the case. Now we have the same differences in software.

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

[Mike Rivers]

On 3/17/2012 10:09 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:

And if a person is skilled in the use of his inexpensive equipment,
will anyone really know that he is using inexpensive equipment?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no, sometimes we don't care. But
clients (a "professional" is one who has clients -
remember??) sometimes judge the level of professionalism by
what they see. For example, you would be judged more
professional by your client (and anyone else watching you
set up) if you carried your gear in well fitted cases in
good condition than if you carried it in in the cardboard
box it was shipped to you in, or a carton you got from the
grocery store. Both serve the purpose equally well, but the
nice cases make a better impression that "this is a
professional that I hired."

And phenomena like bootleg music recordings show that consumers often either
don't know or don't care (or both) about the equipment used to record
something.

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

Then, by that logic, the people carrying Nagras weren't pros, because they
didn't have back-up equipment.

Some did. But those who didn't knew their equipment well
enough to have confidence in it to last through a gig. They
develop that confidence by working with it, perhaps working
on it, taking it apart and seeing how it's built, knowing
that it's properly maintained, and such. You really can't do
very much of that with your Zoom other than keep fresh or
freshly charged batteries in it and tell yourself "It hasn't
failed me yet other than because of operator error."

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

Technology can change things. I suspect a lot of consumer gear can survive
falls and abuse that "pro" gear from decades back could never have tolerated.

I won't argue with that, but there's a wider range of
consumer gear today than there ever was (and still is) of
pro gear. I happen to think that the Zoom H4n feels like a
pretty solid piece of gear. The original H4, which a lot of
wannabe pros bought because it had XLR connectors for
external mics was, mechanically, a piece of crap. Zoom
figured that out and the H2 was much better in that respect,
as was the H4n. And probably even the H1.

The little Handycam that I have produces better images than the pro gear that
I paid tens of thousands of dollars for 20 years ago.

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

But today, after decades of advances in audio recording, the music I hear with
a MP3 player is hard to distinguish in any way at all from recordings made
with equipment costing thousands of dollars. If there's a difference, it's not
so much in the equipment used as in the way the "pros" used it.

I think you're getting it. We really shouldn't be using
labels for gear like "professional" and "consumer." A
professional can make his choice and will likely choose
wisely whether he buys from Full Compass Systems or Best
Buy. I see some $25,000 turntables, and $30.000 amplifiers
and speakers at CES. Are they professional because of the
cost or the build quality? Not necessarily.

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

If I buy the fancy equipment, I still won't get pro results because I don't
know enough about how to make the best of the gear. But a seasoned pro will be
able to do better with even cheap equipment, since he'll know how to use it

There's some truth to that, but if you never get any better,
then you might as well stick with consumer equipment. While
experienced engineers have demonstrated that they can use an
SM57 for everything on a session and have it sound fine,
there comes a point where the equipment WILL stand in your
way. There's a good example right here in this discussion,
that of using a handheld recorder for gathering quiet nature
sounds. A review reported that at full gain, it was a little
noisy. Would coupling it with a "professional" outboard
preamp solve that problem? Quite likely. Would buying a more
"professional" recorder like, for example, a Sony PCM-D50
for twice as much solve the problem? Maybe - it's worth a
test. I suggested that he do the "professional" thing and
get both (I think he was talking about a TASCAM DR-40 vs.
Zoom H4n), evaluate them for the use he intended, and then
keep the one that was best, or return both of them if
neither did the job satisfactorily. That's what
professionals do.

Yes! So it's scarcely a question of gear at all. There is no "pro" or
"consumer," there is only "do."

Well, the Zoom H2 and Korg MR-1000 are clearly targeted for
different markets. But you don't need a special license to
buy the "pro" unit, nor, if you're professional, do you need
a special exemption to buy the "consumer" unit.

But pros can't afford to have the ideal equipment for each situation,
either. And if they don't have the right stuff, they have to make do with
whatever they have on hand, just like consumers.

NO, NO, NO, NO . . . the difference between a pro and a
non-pro is that the pro will recognize what he needs and get
it. He won't necessarily buy it, he'll rent it. The non-pro
will make do with what he has on hand and probably won't
turn in as good a job as the pro. But to some the difference
isn't important - though the difference charged by each one
might well be.

I'd rather hire a pro to use my H4n than hire an amateur to use his Nagra. The
former would almost certainly get better results than the latter.

You probably won't find an amateur with a Nagra. In fact,
today, you probably won't find too many pros with Nagras.
It's not just a portable recorder any more - those, as you
say, are a dime a dozen. It's a very special kind of
recorder. Sure, it'll work for recording your band's
rehearsals or your school orchestra concerts. But you can
probably do that cheaper and, in many cases just as well,
with the Zoom.

But that doesn't make either one professional.




--
"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

[Luxey]

�убота, 17. март 2012. 15..14.11 UTC+1, Mxsmanic је напи�ао/ла:
Scott Dorsey writes:

The professional vs. consumer split has nothing to do with technology.

Right. That is, it has nothing to do with equipment.

Sure, but results aren't what make it professional.

Really? Then why do people pay pros lots of money for results?

How easy it is to get those results, how reliable it is getting them,
and what happens when something goes wrong are what makes it professional.

All of which depend a lot more on the person using the equipment than on the
equipment itself.

I hate to say it, but it doesn't sound like you have actually used any
professional gear. I recommend trying some. It's a very different
experience than what you seem to be used to.

I haven't used much in the way of professional audio gear, but I've used a lot
of such gear in other domains over the years. Using so-called professional
equipment is usually a lot more enjoyable than using so-called consumer
equipment ... but these days it's very hard to draw a clear line between the
two for audio-visual equipment.

The widespread use of digital systems has had a tremendous levelling effect,
since it eliminates a lot of analog gear that is extremely sensitive to
manufacturing tolerances and was formerly the source of wide differences
between "consumer" and "pro" equipment.

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

[vdubreeze]

On Mar 17, 10:14*am, Mxsmanic wrote:


I haven't used much in the way of professional audio gear,

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

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

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

[Mike Rivers]

On 3/17/2012 11:29 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:

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

My point is that there is no clear distinction between pro and consumer
equipment, particularly for mature technologies.

No argument there. But professional isn't defined by
equipment. I think that most people know what's on one end
or the other, and if what's in the middle is used both by
professionals and non -professionals (hey, professionals are
consumers too - quit using that word!) so be it. There are
professionals who are willing to take risks using
inexpensive gear that isn't built to the same standards as
more expensive gear, but if they're still making money and
keeping business going, that defines them as professional.

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

We in this business don't get exposed to real professional
software. There are software quality standards in place for,
for example, software and firmware used in airport landing
and lighting systems, that assure that it's fail-safe and
doesn't crash unless there's a hardware problem. And often
the hardware is redundant so it can sustain a failure and
the system will continue to operate.

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

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


--
"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

[vdubreeze]

On Mar 17, 11:29*am, Mxsmanic wrote:

My point is that there is no clear distinction between pro and consumer
equipment, particularly for mature technologies. There may well be equipment
that is very obviously consumer or very obviously professional, but it's a
continuum rather than a black and white distinction. And in the middle,
there's lots of argument by people who believe that whatever they have is pro,
and anything less is consumer.

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

People either know what they're buying or they don't, or it doesn't
matter much, or it doesn't actually make much difference, and this is
regardless of the category. Not a whole lot more to say about it.

[Mike Rivers]

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

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

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

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


--
"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

[hank alrich]

Mxsmanic wrote:

Nevertheless, I'm sure there are people around who have paid even more for
something else and thus consider the Nagra to be "non-professional" equipment.

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

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

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

[hank alrich]

Mxsmanic wrote:

snipitty doo dah

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

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

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

snipitty yay

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

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

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

[hank alrich]

Mxsmanic wrote:

hank alrich writes:

People who make their eintire living doing film and video sound work.

There is no consensus among these people.

You either know about that kind of work or you don't.

You haven't answered the question.

Yor're not talking about what the rest of us are talking about.

You haven't answered the question.

I've explained what "professional" really means: it's the best you can afford,
or anything beyond what you can afford. Anything less expensive is "amateur"
or "consumer." There are no other standards.

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

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

[hank alrich]

Mxsmanic wrote:

Most people don't want to admit that this is the correct definition.

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

Go write a dictionary.

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

[hank alrich]

Mike Rivers wrote:

On 3/16/2012 11:29 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:

I've explained what "professional" really means: it's the best you can
afford, or anything beyond what you can afford. Anything less expensive
is "amateur" or "consumer." There are no other standards.

I suppose you're entitled to define it however you choose.
Have you checked a dictionary? While some "professional"
gear is indeed more expensive than devices that can perform
the same functions at lower cost, cost shouldn't be the
defining quality.

Lots of professional engineers use $100 microphones, but
what makes them professional is that they also have $2,000
microphones that they can use when it's appropriate, and
they're experienced enough to know how to choose which tool
to use for the job.

Bingo. Pros I know do not spend money without consideration of results
and value.

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

[hank alrich]

Mxsmanic wrote:

No, I'm serious. I'm tired of seeing people talk about "pro" vs. "consumer"
gear as if there were some bona fide, bright-line distinction between them.

This group is about pro audio. In that field you are obivously clueless.
You don't seem to realize that.

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