What mics do you recommend?

[Shy Picker[_3_]]

According to the good folks that responded to my other post a week or
so age it looks like the mics I am using for recording, Excel EXM90
Mics, are not that good. I have a couple of hundred dollars or so that
I can spend on mics so I am wondering if I can get one or two great
mics for that kind of money. I would like to have two mics around to
use but maybe it would be worthwhile to spend the money on one great
mic for now and get another one a few months down the road.

What do you folks recommend? Would $200 - $250 be enough to get one or
two mics that I won't be wanting to replace with something better
after only a short time?

Also, I have never been one that was comfortable buying used mics. I
would rather get new mics that have a warranty.

Thanks, David

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
Shy Picker > wrote:
>According to the good folks that responded to my other post a week or
>so age it looks like the mics I am using for recording, Excel EXM90
>Mics, are not that good. I have a couple of hundred dollars or so that
>I can spend on mics so I am wondering if I can get one or two great
>mics for that kind of money. I would like to have two mics around to
>use but maybe it would be worthwhile to spend the money on one great
>mic for now and get another one a few months down the road.
>
>What do you folks recommend? Would $200 - $250 be enough to get one or
>two mics that I won't be wanting to replace with something better
>after only a short time?

Buy an SM-57. Buy an EV N/D 406 or N/D 468.

>Also, I have never been one that was comfortable buying used mics. I
>would rather get new mics that have a warranty.

There's nothing wrong with buying used. In the case of an SM-57, you
won't save very much money, though. But there isn't a whole lot to go
wrong with a dynamic mike.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arkansan Raider]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article >,
> Shy Picker > wrote:
>> According to the good folks that responded to my other post a week or
>> so age it looks like the mics I am using for recording, Excel EXM90
>> Mics, are not that good. I have a couple of hundred dollars or so that
>> I can spend on mics so I am wondering if I can get one or two great
>> mics for that kind of money. I would like to have two mics around to
>> use but maybe it would be worthwhile to spend the money on one great
>> mic for now and get another one a few months down the road.
>>
>> What do you folks recommend? Would $200 - $250 be enough to get one or
>> two mics that I won't be wanting to replace with something better
>> after only a short time?
>
> Buy an SM-57. Buy an EV N/D 406 or N/D 468.

Speaking of EV, I'm a big fan of the 757. I sing bass, and it fits my
range nicely. Only problem is it seems rather muffled up top. But when
you're singing rhythm bass, that doesn't matter too terribly much.

JMHSO

---Jeff

>
>> Also, I have never been one that was comfortable buying used mics. I
>> would rather get new mics that have a warranty.
>
> There's nothing wrong with buying used. In the case of an SM-57, you
> won't save very much money, though. But there isn't a whole lot to go
> wrong with a dynamic mike.
> --scott

[Arkansan Raider]

Arkansan Raider wrote:
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> In article
>> >,
>> Shy Picker > wrote:
>>> According to the good folks that responded to my other post a week or
>>> so age it looks like the mics I am using for recording, Excel EXM90
>>> Mics, are not that good. I have a couple of hundred dollars or so that
>>> I can spend on mics so I am wondering if I can get one or two great
>>> mics for that kind of money. I would like to have two mics around to
>>> use but maybe it would be worthwhile to spend the money on one great
>>> mic for now and get another one a few months down the road.
>>>
>>> What do you folks recommend? Would $200 - $250 be enough to get one or
>>> two mics that I won't be wanting to replace with something better
>>> after only a short time?
>>
>> Buy an SM-57. Buy an EV N/D 406 or N/D 468.
>
> Speaking of EV, I'm a big fan of the 757. I sing bass, and it fits my
> range nicely. Only problem is it seems rather muffled up top. But when
> you're singing rhythm bass, that doesn't matter too terribly much.
>
> JMHSO
>
> ---Jeff

I have also used the newer incarnations, specifically the 767. It's a
teeny bit brighter and still good quality.

---Jeff

[thepaulthomas]

On Sep 4, 11:58*am, Shy Picker > wrote:
> According to the good folks that responded to my other post a week or
> so age it looks like the mics I am using for recording, Excel EXM90
> Mics, are not that good. I have a couple of hundred dollars or so that
> I can spend on mics so I am wondering if I can get one or two great
> mics for that kind of money. I would like to have two mics around to
> use but maybe it would be worthwhile to spend the money on one great
> mic for now and get another one a few months down the road.
>
> What do you folks recommend? Would $200 - $250 be enough to get one or
> two mics that I won't be wanting to replace with something better
> after only a short time?
>
> Also, I have never been one that was comfortable buying used mics. I
> would rather get new mics that have a warranty.
>
> Thanks, David

Shure SM-57's are always a good place to start within your stated
price range and you could afford a pair. But it's also worth
considering a single used Beyerdynamic M-201 (about $150-$200) or a
used Sennheiser MD-421-U-5. ($200-$250). Chances are good that you
will never get tired of any of those mic's.

[thepaulthomas]

On Sep 4, 12:23*pm, Arkansan Raider > wrote:
> Arkansan Raider wrote:
> > Scott Dorsey wrote:
> >> In article
> >> >,
> >> Shy Picker > wrote:
> >>> According to the good folks that responded to my other post a week or
> >>> so age it looks like the mics I am using for recording, Excel EXM90
> >>> Mics, are not that good. I have a couple of hundred dollars or so that
> >>> I can spend on mics so I am wondering if I can get one or two great
> >>> mics for that kind of money. I would like to have two mics around to
> >>> use but maybe it would be worthwhile to spend the money on one great
> >>> mic for now and get another one a few months down the road.
>
> >>> What do you folks recommend? Would $200 - $250 be enough to get one or
> >>> two mics that I won't be wanting to replace with something better
> >>> after only a short time?
>
> >> Buy an SM-57. *Buy an EV N/D 406 or N/D 468.
>
> > Speaking of EV, I'm a big fan of the 757. I sing bass, and it fits my
> > range nicely. Only problem is it seems rather muffled up top. But when
> > you're singing rhythm bass, that doesn't matter too terribly much.
>
> > JMHSO
>
> > ---Jeff
>
> I have also used the newer incarnations, specifically the 767. It's a
> teeny bit brighter and still good quality.
>
> ---Jeff

The N/D-857 is also a winner but I very rarely see them on the used
gear market.

[Arkansan Raider]

thepaulthomas wrote:
> On Sep 4, 12:23 pm, Arkansan Raider > wrote:
>> Arkansan Raider wrote:
>>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>> >,
>>>> Shy Picker > wrote:
>>>>> According to the good folks that responded to my other post a week or
>>>>> so age it looks like the mics I am using for recording, Excel EXM90
>>>>> Mics, are not that good. I have a couple of hundred dollars or so that
>>>>> I can spend on mics so I am wondering if I can get one or two great
>>>>> mics for that kind of money. I would like to have two mics around to
>>>>> use but maybe it would be worthwhile to spend the money on one great
>>>>> mic for now and get another one a few months down the road.
>>>>> What do you folks recommend? Would $200 - $250 be enough to get one or
>>>>> two mics that I won't be wanting to replace with something better
>>>>> after only a short time?
>>>> Buy an SM-57. Buy an EV N/D 406 or N/D 468.
>>> Speaking of EV, I'm a big fan of the 757. I sing bass, and it fits my
>>> range nicely. Only problem is it seems rather muffled up top. But when
>>> you're singing rhythm bass, that doesn't matter too terribly much.
>>> JMHSO
>>> ---Jeff
>> I have also used the newer incarnations, specifically the 767. It's a
>> teeny bit brighter and still good quality.
>>
>> ---Jeff
>
> The N/D-857 is also a winner but I very rarely see them on the used
> gear market.

Oh, heck yeah. That was the first mic I recorded on back in the day.
That was just before we upgraded to an RE-2000.

Speaking of good mics, that RE-2000 was a Hoss. Can't seem to find
*them* either.

Our first signal path was the N/D 857 to a Tascam 32/8 3500M to a Tascam
1616 (I think). We upgraded to an RE-2000 to the 3500M to a Tascam 2424.

We did mostly a cappella, and the N/D 857 was great. Then again, we
stopped that in the mid-90's to go to all-digital stuff.

I still kinda' miss that studio. (sniff)

---Jeff

[hank alrich]

Scott Dorsey > wrote:

> Shy Picker > wrote:
> >According to the good folks that responded to my other post a week or
> >so age it looks like the mics I am using for recording, Excel EXM90
> >Mics, are not that good. I have a couple of hundred dollars or so that
> >I can spend on mics so I am wondering if I can get one or two great
> >mics for that kind of money. I would like to have two mics around to
> >use but maybe it would be worthwhile to spend the money on one great
> >mic for now and get another one a few months down the road.
> >
> >What do you folks recommend? Would $200 - $250 be enough to get one or
> >two mics that I won't be wanting to replace with something better
> >after only a short time?
>
> Buy an SM-57. Buy an EV N/D 406 or N/D 468.
>
> >Also, I have never been one that was comfortable buying used mics. I
> >would rather get new mics that have a warranty.
>
> There's nothing wrong with buying used. In the case of an SM-57, you
> won't save very much money, though. But there isn't a whole lot to go
> wrong with a dynamic mike.
> --scott

I could not in good conscience recommend an SM57 to anyone who does not
have a professional grade mic preamp to which to connect it. I'd rather
use a pair of fifty-bucks-a-pair Behringers to track acoustic guitar
than an SM57 into a Mackie short of the Onyx line, or any other cheap
board preamp.

Jim Williams suggestion of the MCA-SP-1 has turned out to be spot-on
IMO. Of course, those do cost almost fifty bucks each. They are silly
good for what they cost and decent even disregarding cost.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

hank alrich wrote:

> Jim Williams suggestion of the MCA-SP-1 has turned out to be spot-on
> IMO. Of course, those do cost almost fifty bucks each. They are silly
> good for what they cost and decent even disregarding cost.

And since it reportedly is the capsule that is also in the MXL 603, then a
pair of each might be a good idea.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 17:44:22 +1000, Soundhaspriority
> wrote:


>>
>> Bob Morein
>> (310) 237-6511
>
>Sorry guys, forgery.
>
>Bob

New tactic, scumbag?

d

[Robert Morein]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
...
> Scott Dorsey > wrote:
>
>> Shy Picker > wrote:
>> >According to the good folks that responded to my other post a week or
>> >so age it looks like the mics I am using for recording, Excel EXM90
>> >Mics, are not that good. I have a couple of hundred dollars or so that
>> >I can spend on mics so I am wondering if I can get one or two great
>> >mics for that kind of money. I would like to have two mics around to
>> >use but maybe it would be worthwhile to spend the money on one great
>> >mic for now and get another one a few months down the road.
>> >
>> >What do you folks recommend? Would $200 - $250 be enough to get one or
>> >two mics that I won't be wanting to replace with something better
>> >after only a short time?
>>
>> Buy an SM-57. Buy an EV N/D 406 or N/D 468.
>>
>> >Also, I have never been one that was comfortable buying used mics. I
>> >would rather get new mics that have a warranty.
>>
>> There's nothing wrong with buying used. In the case of an SM-57, you
>> won't save very much money, though. But there isn't a whole lot to go
>> wrong with a dynamic mike.
>> --scott
>
> I could not in good conscience recommend an SM57 to anyone who does not
> have a professional grade mic preamp to which to connect it. I'd rather
> use a pair of fifty-bucks-a-pair Behringers to track acoustic guitar
> than an SM57 into a Mackie short of the Onyx line, or any other cheap
> board preamp.
>
> Jim Williams suggestion of the MCA-SP-1 has turned out to be spot-on
> IMO. Of course, those do cost almost fifty bucks each. They are silly
> good for what they cost and decent even disregarding cost.
>
> --
> ha
> shut up and play your guitar

I second the above. Also well regarded for guitar: MXL603/604.

Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511

[Ty Ford]

On Sat, 5 Sep 2009 01:20:44 -0400, Peter Larsen wrote
(in article >):

> hank alrich wrote:
>
>> Jim Williams suggestion of the MCA-SP-1 has turned out to be spot-on
>> IMO. Of course, those do cost almost fifty bucks each. They are silly
>> good for what they cost and decent even disregarding cost.
>
> And since it reportedly is the capsule that is also in the MXL 603, then a
> pair of each might be a good idea.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen

I thought they were LD and SD.

Ty


--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, 5 Sep 2009 01:20:44 -0400, Peter Larsen wrote
> (in article >):
>
> > hank alrich wrote:
> >
> >> Jim Williams suggestion of the MCA-SP-1 has turned out to be spot-on
> >> IMO. Of course, those do cost almost fifty bucks each. They are silly
> >> good for what they cost and decent even disregarding cost.
> >
> > And since it reportedly is the capsule that is also in the MXL 603, then a
> > pair of each might be a good idea.
> >
> > Kind regards
> >
> > Peter Larsen
>
> I thought they were LD and SD.

A quick search finds a 603 cap spec'd at 22mm, while IIRC, the SP-1 isd
20mm.

(Can't seem to quickly find a spec for the latter. Maybe gaargle can't
search inside a blister pack.)

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[hank alrich]

Brian El McCarty (X-Complaints-To: ) wrote:

> Sorry guys, forgery.

Forger forging. What a returd.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Ty Ford wrote:

[MCA SP1]

>> And since it reportedly is the capsule that is also in the MXL 603,
>> then a pair of each might be a good idea.

> I thought they were LD and SD.

The SP1 has a brass ring around the capsule that moves the "druckstau" to a
lower frequency, my recollection is that the capsule is 22 millimetres. I
can not remember where I read that it is the 603 capsule that is in it.

> Ty

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Shy Picker[_3_]]

On Sep 4, 5:19*pm, (hank alrich) wrote:
> Scott Dorsey > wrote:
> > Shy Picker > wrote:
> > >According to the good folks that responded to my other post a week or
> > >so age it looks like the mics I am using for recording, Excel EXM90
> > >Mics, are not that good. I have a couple of hundred dollars or so that
> > >I can spend on mics so I am wondering if I can get one or two great
> > >mics for that kind of money. I would like to have two mics around to
> > >use but maybe it would be worthwhile to spend the money on one great
> > >mic for now and get another one a few months down the road.
>
> > >What do you folks recommend? Would $200 - $250 be enough to get one or
> > >two mics that I won't be wanting to replace with something better
> > >after only a short time?
>
> > Buy an SM-57. *Buy an EV N/D 406 or N/D 468.
>
> > >Also, I have never been one that was comfortable buying used mics. I
> > >would rather get new mics that have a warranty.
>
> > There's nothing wrong with buying used. *In the case of an SM-57, you
> > won't save very much money, though. *But there isn't a whole lot to go
> > wrong with a dynamic mike.
> > --scott
>
> I could not in good conscience recommend an SM57 to anyone who does not
> have a professional grade mic preamp to which to connect it. I'd rather
> use a pair of fifty-bucks-a-pair Behringers to track acoustic guitar
> than an SM57 into a Mackie short of the Onyx line, or any other cheap
> board preamp.
>
> Jim Williams suggestion of the MCA-SP-1 has turned out to be spot-on
> IMO. Of course, those do cost almost fifty bucks each. They are silly
> good for what they cost and decent even disregarding cost.
>
> --
> ha
> shut up and play your guitar

Howdy Hank. Thanks for the suggestions.

I have been looking around the internet for some of the MCA-SP1 mics
and the only ones I have found are from a single seller on eBay that
cost $91.00 with shipping. Where are the fifty buck ones?

David

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Peter Larsen wrote:

> The SP1 has a brass ring around the capsule that moves the
> "druckstau" to a lower frequency, my recollection is that the capsule
> is 22 millimetres. I can not remember where I read that it is the 603
> capsule that is in it.

I was wrong, it is a 20 mm capsule, I was right, so is the 603 ... see:

http://recordinghacks.com/microphones/MCA/SP1


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[hank alrich]

Shy Picker > wrote:

> On Sep 4, 5:19 pm, (hank alrich) wrote:
> > Scott Dorsey > wrote:
> > > Shy Picker > wrote:
> > > >According to the good folks that responded to my other post a week or
> > > >so age it looks like the mics I am using for recording, Excel EXM90
> > > >Mics, are not that good. I have a couple of hundred dollars or so that
> > > >I can spend on mics so I am wondering if I can get one or two great
> > > >mics for that kind of money. I would like to have two mics around to
> > > >use but maybe it would be worthwhile to spend the money on one great
> > > >mic for now and get another one a few months down the road.
> >
> > > >What do you folks recommend? Would $200 - $250 be enough to get one or
> > > >two mics that I won't be wanting to replace with something better
> > > >after only a short time?
> >
> > > Buy an SM-57. Buy an EV N/D 406 or N/D 468.
> >
> > > >Also, I have never been one that was comfortable buying used mics. I
> > > >would rather get new mics that have a warranty.
> >
> > > There's nothing wrong with buying used. In the case of an SM-57, you
> > > won't save very much money, though. But there isn't a whole lot to go
> > > wrong with a dynamic mike.
> > > --scott
> >
> > I could not in good conscience recommend an SM57 to anyone who does not
> > have a professional grade mic preamp to which to connect it. I'd rather
> > use a pair of fifty-bucks-a-pair Behringers to track acoustic guitar
> > than an SM57 into a Mackie short of the Onyx line, or any other cheap
> > board preamp.
> >
> > Jim Williams suggestion of the MCA-SP-1 has turned out to be spot-on
> > IMO. Of course, those do cost almost fifty bucks each. They are silly
> > good for what they cost and decent even disregarding cost.
> >
> > --
> > ha
> > shut up and play your guitar
>
> Howdy Hank. Thanks for the suggestions.
>
> I have been looking around the internet for some of the MCA-SP1 mics
> and the only ones I have found are from a single seller on eBay that
> cost $91.00 with shipping. Where are the fifty buck ones?
>
> David

http://www.pssl.com/

Type sp-1 into their search box. $49.99.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[Shy Picker[_3_]]

On Sep 6, 11:25*am, (hank alrich) wrote:
> Shy Picker > wrote:
> > On Sep 4, 5:19 pm, (hank alrich) wrote:
> > > Scott Dorsey > wrote:
> > > > Shy Picker > wrote:
> > > > >According to the good folks that responded to my other post a week or
> > > > >so age it looks like the mics I am using for recording, Excel EXM90
> > > > >Mics, are not that good. I have a couple of hundred dollars or so that
> > > > >I can spend on mics so I am wondering if I can get one or two great
> > > > >mics for that kind of money. I would like to have two mics around to
> > > > >use but maybe it would be worthwhile to spend the money on one great
> > > > >mic for now and get another one a few months down the road.
>
> > > > >What do you folks recommend? Would $200 - $250 be enough to get one or
> > > > >two mics that I won't be wanting to replace with something better
> > > > >after only a short time?
>
> > > > Buy an SM-57. *Buy an EV N/D 406 or N/D 468.
>
> > > > >Also, I have never been one that was comfortable buying used mics. I
> > > > >would rather get new mics that have a warranty.
>
> > > > There's nothing wrong with buying used. *In the case of an SM-57, you
> > > > won't save very much money, though. *But there isn't a whole lot to go
> > > > wrong with a dynamic mike.
> > > > --scott
>
> > > I could not in good conscience recommend an SM57 to anyone who does not
> > > have a professional grade mic preamp to which to connect it. I'd rather
> > > use a pair of fifty-bucks-a-pair Behringers to track acoustic guitar
> > > than an SM57 into a Mackie short of the Onyx line, or any other cheap
> > > board preamp.
>
> > > Jim Williams suggestion of the MCA-SP-1 has turned out to be spot-on
> > > IMO. Of course, those do cost almost fifty bucks each. They are silly
> > > good for what they cost and decent even disregarding cost.
>
> > > --
> > > ha
> > > shut up and play your guitar
>
> > Howdy Hank. Thanks for the suggestions.
>
> > I have been looking around the internet for some of the MCA-SP1 mics
> > and the only ones I have found are from a single seller on eBay that
> > cost $91.00 with shipping. Where are the fifty buck ones?
>
> > David
>
> http://www.pssl.com/
>
> Type *sp-1 *into their search box. $49.99.
>
> --
> ha
> shut up and play your guitar

Thanks. I did a google search and didn't find any for sale. I think I
will try a couple of these since they are so inexpensive and come
highly recommended.

David

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
k
> Peter Larsen wrote:
>
>> The SP1 has a brass ring around the capsule that moves
>> the "druckstau" to a lower frequency, my recollection is
>> that the capsule is 22 millimetres. I can not remember
>> where I read that it is the 603 capsule that is in it.
>
> I was wrong, it is a 20 mm capsule, I was right, so is
> the 603 ... see:
> http://recordinghacks.com/microphones/MCA/SP1
>

I was hanging out with an older good bud last night, and he mentioned that
in the day, EV made one capsule, graded them, and assigned them to 664s,
665s, and 666s according to quality. Then EV got really good at making those
capsules and a 664 was about as good as a 666.

[Arny Krueger]

"Shy Picker" > wrote in message

> On Sep 6, 11:25 am, (hank alrich) wrote:
>> Shy Picker > wrote:
>>> On Sep 4, 5:19 pm, (hank alrich) wrote:
>>>> Scott Dorsey > wrote:
>>>>> Shy Picker > wrote:
>>>>>> According to the good folks that responded to my
>>>>>> other post a week or so age it looks like the mics I
>>>>>> am using for recording, Excel EXM90 Mics, are not
>>>>>> that good. I have a couple of hundred dollars or so
>>>>>> that I can spend on mics so I am wondering if I can
>>>>>> get one or two great mics for that kind of money. I
>>>>>> would like to have two mics around to use but maybe
>>>>>> it would be worthwhile to spend the money on one
>>>>>> great mic for now and get another one a few months
>>>>>> down the road.
>>
>>>>>> What do you folks recommend? Would $200 - $250 be
>>>>>> enough to get one or two mics that I won't be
>>>>>> wanting to replace with something better after only
>>>>>> a short time?
>>
>>>>> Buy an SM-57. Buy an EV N/D 406 or N/D 468.
>>
>>>>>> Also, I have never been one that was comfortable
>>>>>> buying used mics. I would rather get new mics that
>>>>>> have a warranty.
>>
>>>>> There's nothing wrong with buying used. In the case
>>>>> of an SM-57, you won't save very much money, though.
>>>>> But there isn't a whole lot to go wrong with a
>>>>> dynamic mike. --scott
>>
>>>> I could not in good conscience recommend an SM57 to
>>>> anyone who does not have a professional grade mic
>>>> preamp to which to connect it. I'd rather use a pair
>>>> of fifty-bucks-a-pair Behringers to track acoustic
>>>> guitar than an SM57 into a Mackie short of the Onyx
>>>> line, or any other cheap board preamp.
>>
>>>> Jim Williams suggestion of the MCA-SP-1 has turned out
>>>> to be spot-on IMO. Of course, those do cost almost
>>>> fifty bucks each. They are silly good for what they
>>>> cost and decent even disregarding cost.
>>
>>>> --
>>>> ha
>>>> shut up and play your guitar
>>
>>> Howdy Hank. Thanks for the suggestions.
>>
>>> I have been looking around the internet for some of the
>>> MCA-SP1 mics and the only ones I have found are from a
>>> single seller on eBay that cost $91.00 with shipping.
>>> Where are the fifty buck ones?
>>
>>> David
>>
>> http://www.pssl.com/
>>
>> Type sp-1 into their search box. $49.99.

> Thanks. I did a google search and didn't find any for
> sale. I think I will try a couple of these since they are
> so inexpensive and come highly recommended.

I ended up with one of these on the recommendation of Peter Larsen and used
it for some voice work for a video. Sounded great.

[Scott Dorsey]

Arny Krueger > wrote:
>
>I was hanging out with an older good bud last night, and he mentioned that
>in the day, EV made one capsule, graded them, and assigned them to 664s,
>665s, and 666s according to quality. Then EV got really good at making those
>capsules and a 664 was about as good as a 666.

Not at all. Notice the substantial grille design differences between the
666 and 664. The element is really only one part of a complete system.
--scott

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

[Arkansan Raider]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> The element is really only one part of a complete system.
> --scott
>

So an element isn't an essential element?

Heh.

Sorry, couldn't resist. You can grill me about it later.

---Jeff

[Anahata]

On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 14:19:30 -0700, hank alrich wrote:

>
> I could not in good conscience recommend an SM57 to anyone who does not
> have a professional grade mic preamp to which to connect it.

Or a 600 ohm resistor :-)

(explanation for those who've not seen it)
http://www.recordingmag.com/resources/resourceDetail/330.html

--
Anahata
==//== 01638 720444
http://www.treewind.co.uk ==//== http://www.myspace.com/maryanahata

[hank alrich]

anahata > wrote:

> On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 14:19:30 -0700, hank alrich wrote:
>
> >
> > I could not in good conscience recommend an SM57 to anyone who does not
> > have a professional grade mic preamp to which to connect it.
>
> Or a 600 ohm resistor :-)
>
> (explanation for those who've not seen it)
> http://www.recordingmag.com/resources/resourceDetail/330.html

It wants iron to sound like it was intended to sound. A 57 into an API
or Great River can be a thing of real beauty. Also into an FMR RNP,
because McQ put a touch of inductance in there just for the purpose of
having those mics sound good into what is arguably the best inexpesnive
preamp.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[JazzCat]

On Sep 4, 8:58*pm, Shy Picker > wrote:
> According to the good folks that responded to my other post a week or
> so age it looks like the mics I am using for recording, Excel EXM90
> Mics, are not that good. I have a couple of hundred dollars or so that
> I can spend on mics so I am wondering if I can get one or two great
> mics for that kind of money. I would like to have two mics around to
> use but maybe it would be worthwhile to spend the money on one great
> mic for now and get another one a few months down the road.
>
> What do you folks recommend? Would $200 - $250 be enough to get one or
> two mics that I won't be wanting to replace with something better
> after only a short time?

I get fairly good results with my AKG Perception 200, but then again I
am heavily abusing the proximity effect to boost my thin, whiny voice.
I also understood the 200 has been discontinued, but perhaps you can
find some second hand.

RS

[Scott Dorsey]

hank alrich > wrote:
>anahata > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 14:19:30 -0700, hank alrich wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > I could not in good conscience recommend an SM57 to anyone who does not
>> > have a professional grade mic preamp to which to connect it.
>>
>> Or a 600 ohm resistor :-)
>>
>> (explanation for those who've not seen it)
>> http://www.recordingmag.com/resources/resourceDetail/330.html
>
>It wants iron to sound like it was intended to sound. A 57 into an API
>or Great River can be a thing of real beauty. Also into an FMR RNP,
>because McQ put a touch of inductance in there just for the purpose of
>having those mics sound good into what is arguably the best inexpesnive
>preamp.

Hank, if you haven't tried the shunt resistor trick, try it. I wouldn't
have believed it if Stamler hadn't shown me.

I won't argue that it's as good as a transformer, and it does degrade the
S/N compared with a transformer input... but hell, it's $10 worth of
parts and the improvement is amazing.
--scott

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

[Ty Ford]

On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 11:25:24 -0400, hank alrich wrote
(in article >):

>
> http://www.pssl.com/
>
> Type sp-1 into their search box. $49.99.


I thought it had been $39.95.

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

[drichard]

Hi Ty,

Yes, it used to be $39.95, but now it is $49.95.

Dean


On Sep 7, 7:08*pm, Ty Ford > wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 11:25:24 -0400, hank alrich wrote
> (in article >):
>
>
>
> >http://www.pssl.com/
>
> > Type *sp-1 *into their search box. $49.99.
>
> I thought it had been $39.95.
>
> Ty Ford
>
> --Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
> Acting and Voiceover Demoshttp://www.tyford.com
> Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[Ty Ford]

On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 21:12:35 -0400, drichard wrote
(in article
>):

> Hi Ty,
>
> Yes, it used to be $39.95, but now it is $49.95.
>
> Dean
>
>
> On Sep 7, 7:08*pm, Ty Ford > wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 11:25:24 -0400, hank alrich wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>
>>
>>> http://www.pssl.com/
>>
>>> Type *sp-1 *into their search box. $49.99.
>>
>> I thought it had been $39.95.
>>
>> Ty Ford
>>
>> --Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
>> Acting and Voiceover Demoshttp://www.tyford.com
>> Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA
>

Man that's really a total rip off!!! These companies think they are the cat's
meow the way they jack up prices!! That's a 25% increase!!!

::humor filter disengaged::

Regards,

TyFord



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

[Mike Rivers]

drichard wrote:

> Yes, it used to be $39.95, but now it is $49.95.

And when they no longer have any left to sell, it'll be $19.95 ;)

[hank alrich]

Ty Ford > wrote:

> On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 21:12:35 -0400, drichard wrote
> (in article
> >):
>
> > Hi Ty,
> >
> > Yes, it used to be $39.95, but now it is $49.95.
> >
> > Dean
> >
> >
> > On Sep 7, 7:08 pm, Ty Ford > wrote:
> >> On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 11:25:24 -0400, hank alrich wrote
> >> (in article >):
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> http://www.pssl.com/
> >>
> >>> Type sp-1 into their search box. $49.99.
> >>
> >> I thought it had been $39.95.
> >>
> >> Ty Ford
> >>
> >> --Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
> >> Acting and Voiceover Demoshttp://www.tyford.com
> >> Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA
> >
>
> Man that's really a total rip off!!! These companies think they are the cat's
> meow the way they jack up prices!! That's a 25% increase!!!
>
> ::humor filter disengaged::
>
> Regards,
>
> TyFord

Then for real, even with such small and lightweight items, shipping
anything anywhere has become significantly more expensive in the last
two years.


--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[hank alrich]

Ty Ford > wrote:

> On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 21:12:35 -0400, drichard wrote
> (in article
> >):
>
> > Hi Ty,
> >
> > Yes, it used to be $39.95, but now it is $49.95.
> >
> > Dean
> >
> >
> > On Sep 7, 7:08 pm, Ty Ford > wrote:
> >> On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 11:25:24 -0400, hank alrich wrote
> >> (in article >):
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> http://www.pssl.com/
> >>
> >>> Type sp-1 into their search box. $49.99.
> >>
> >> I thought it had been $39.95.
> >>
> >> Ty Ford
> >>
> >> --Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
> >> Acting and Voiceover Demoshttp://www.tyford.com
> >> Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA
> >
>
> Man that's really a total rip off!!! These companies think they are the cat's
> meow the way they jack up prices!! That's a 25% increase!!!
>
> ::humor filter disengaged::
>
> Regards,
>
> TyFord

You want sticker shock, check the current MSRP for a Hohner Marine Band
harmonica...


--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[Misifus[_2_]]

hank alrich wrote:
> anahata > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 14:19:30 -0700, hank alrich wrote:
>>
>>> I could not in good conscience recommend an SM57 to anyone who does not
>>> have a professional grade mic preamp to which to connect it.
>> Or a 600 ohm resistor :-)
>>
>> (explanation for those who've not seen it)
>> http://www.recordingmag.com/resources/resourceDetail/330.html
>
> It wants iron to sound like it was intended to sound. A 57 into an API
> or Great River can be a thing of real beauty. Also into an FMR RNP,
> because McQ put a touch of inductance in there just for the purpose of
> having those mics sound good into what is arguably the best inexpesnive
> preamp.
>


I built a similar gismo to bring the input impedance on a PADI down to 1
meg for my K&K pickups. It makes a nice difference.

-Raf

--
Misifus-
Rafael Seibert
Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rafiii
home: http://www.rafandsioux.com

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

hank alrich wrote:

> Then for real, even with such small and lightweight items, shipping
> anything anywhere has become significantly more expensive in the last
> two years.

Yes, but they don't do that, it it courtesy of good and helpful friends
abroad that I own MCA SP1's. They are wonderful for vox pushed up front at 4
inches with a blast screen in between.

One of those is btw. ocasionally hummy until the plug is touched and
wiggled, then it usually stops. What do I look for inside it?

America, you need to re-learn to sell abroad, you can not pay debt with
anything but money earned abroad, your printing dollars wont help you and is
rapidly becoming a major global problem. Please.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[darrelld]

On Sep 8, 11:40*pm, "Peter Larsen" > wrote:
> hank alrich wrote:
> > Then for real, even with such small and lightweight items, shipping
> > anything anywhere has become significantly more expensive in the last
> > two years.
>
> Yes, but they don't do that, it it courtesy of good and helpful friends
> abroad that I own MCA SP1's. They are wonderful for vox pushed up front at 4
> inches with a blast screen in between.
>
> One of those is btw. ocasionally hummy until the plug is touched and
> wiggled, then it usually stops. What do I look for inside it?
>
> America, you need to re-learn to sell abroad, you can not pay debt with
> anything but money earned abroad, your printing dollars wont help you and is
> rapidly becoming a major global problem. Please.
>
> * *Kind regards
>
> * *Peter Larsen

Does any one know if the printing presses we are using to print
greenbacks (to Peter's annoyance - sorry about that) are made in China?

[drichard]

You can rarely find a Hohner Golden Melody for under $30 any more.
Ouch.

On Sep 8, 12:57*pm, (hank alrich) wrote:
> Ty Ford > wrote:
> > On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 21:12:35 -0400, drichard wrote
> > (in article
> > >):
>
> > > Hi Ty,
>
> > > Yes, it used to be $39.95, but now it is $49.95.
>
> > > Dean
>
> > > On Sep 7, 7:08 pm, Ty Ford > wrote:
> > >> On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 11:25:24 -0400, hank alrich wrote
> > >> (in article >):
>
> > >>>http://www.pssl.com/
>
> > >>> Type *sp-1 *into their search box. $49.99.
>
> > >> I thought it had been $39.95.
>
> > >> Ty Ford
>
> > >> --Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
> > >> Acting and Voiceover Demoshttp://www.tyford.com
> > >> Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA
>
> > Man that's really a total rip off!!! These companies think they are the cat's
> > meow the way they jack up prices!! That's a 25% increase!!!
>
> > ::humor filter disengaged::
>
> > Regards,
>
> > TyFord
>
> You want sticker shock, check the current MSRP for a Hohner Marine Band
> harmonica...
>
> --
> ha
> shut up and play your guitar- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Wecan do it]

"drichard" > wrote in message
...
You can rarely find a Hohner Golden Melody for under $30 any
more.
Ouch.

They are so easy to blow out. Have you tried the Haung Star
Performer?


peace
dawg

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

darrelld wrote:

> Does any one know if the printing presses we are using to print
> greenbacks (to Peter's annoyance - sorry about that) are made in
> China?

Unlikely. It takes long time to learn how to build them and very few
companies build intaglio presses because the market is stamps and money
only.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[drichard]

No, I have not. But I will if I get the chance to check one out. I'm
partial to Golden Melody harps, but am always willing to see if
anything else compares.

Thanks for the suggestion.

Dean

On Sep 9, 2:00*pm, "Wecan do it" > wrote:
> "drichard" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> You can rarely find a Hohner Golden Melody for under $30 any
> more.
> Ouch.
>
> They are so easy to blow out. Have you tried the Haung Star
> Performer?
>
> peace
> dawg

[Richard Crowley]

"Peter Larsen" wrote ...
> hank alrich wrote:
>> Then for real, even with such small and lightweight items, shipping
>> anything anywhere has become significantly more expensive in the last
>> two years.
>
> Yes, but they don't do that, it it courtesy of good and helpful friends
> abroad that I own MCA SP1's. They are wonderful for vox pushed up front at
> 4 inches with a blast screen in between.
>
> One of those is btw. ocasionally hummy until the plug is touched and
> wiggled, then it usually stops. What do I look for inside it?
>
> America, you need to re-learn to sell abroad, you can not pay debt with
> anything but money earned abroad, your printing dollars wont help you and
> is rapidly becoming a major global problem. Please.

Good luck with that. The sheeple over here voted in the
Tax-n-Spend party and their new friends, the Print-n-spend
goons. Not that the other party was much better. They have
both spent waaaaaay too much time (and money) in WDC.
I've got new bumper stickers: "Relect NOBODY". Throw
ALL the bums out on their bums.

[Wecan do it]

I really liked the Golden Melody too. They are tuned a little
differently and IMHO blow out easier than any other harp.

I went through a lot of harps in the years but the couple I
like most right now ( and I mostly play bass) is the Suzuki
Bluesmaster and the Oscar's. The Bluesmaster plays like a
Promaster but it has a red plastic comb instead of the metal
comb and it is cheaper than an Oscar.

peace
dawg

"drichard" > wrote in message
...
No, I have not. But I will if I get the chance to check one
out. I'm
partial to Golden Melody harps, but am always willing to see
if
anything else compares.

Thanks for the suggestion.

Dean

On Sep 9, 2:00 pm, "Wecan do it" > wrote:
> "drichard" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> You can rarely find a Hohner Golden Melody for under $30 any
> more.
> Ouch.
>
> They are so easy to blow out. Have you tried the Haung Star
> Performer?
>
> peace
> dawg

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Richard Crowley wrote:

>> One of those is btw. ocasionally hummy until the plug is touched and
>> wiggled, then it usually stops. What do I look for inside it?

>> America, you need to re-learn to sell abroad, you can not pay debt
>> with anything but money earned abroad, your printing dollars wont
>> help you and is rapidly becoming a major global problem. Please.

> Good luck with that. The sheeple over here voted in the
> Tax-n-Spend party and their new friends, the Print-n-spend
> goons. Not that the other party was much better. They have
> both spent waaaaaay too much time (and money) in WDC.
> I've got new bumper stickers: "Relect NOBODY". Throw
> ALL the bums out on their bums.

You're all in for some sticker shocks, the MCA SP1 didn't get more
expensive. Some years ago the dollar was around DKK 8 each, now it is around
DKK 5. Apply the reverse function on the MCA SP1 and result is 63.92. The
example is highly illustrative, ie. exaggerated, but the new stickerprice of
USD 49.95 probably just means that the price is stable except for an added
cost of oil and the tumble of the dollar.

Here's a simple one: whenever Dow Jones goes up, then the value of the
dollar has gone down, because the actual value of the companies based on the
added value they have in their activity has not changed. Yes, it is less
simple because expectations cloud the issue, but value that does not come
from actual added value is bubble money.

Your worry is that your nation is conducting a war that is financed via the
printing press instead of with war bonds as it should have been, my here and
now worry is the hummingbird ... O;-) ... what do I look for when I open it?
....

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[drichard]

Hi dawg,

I needed an F# harp anyway, so I ordered a Huang Star to give it a
try. I'm a creature of habit, so prior to your suggestion I hadn't
felt the need to try other types of harps much. Just found the one I
liked (Golden Melody) 40+ years ago and stuck with it. But I'm playing
in a band now where I'm playing harp wayyyy more than before, probably
15+ songs a night. So I need all of the keys. And if I start blowing
reeds on those harps it will get expensive fast. If nothing else,
maybe I can use the Huang Star harps for the keys that are only used
rarely. So like I said, I'll give one a shot.

Thanks again for the suggestion.

Dean

On Sep 10, 8:39*am, "Wecan do it" > wrote:
> I really liked the Golden Melody too. They are tuned a little
> differently and IMHO blow out easier than any other harp.
>
> I went through a lot of harps in the years but the couple I
> like most right now ( and I mostly play bass) is the Suzuki
> Bluesmaster and the Oscar's. The Bluesmaster plays like a
> Promaster but it has a red plastic comb instead of the metal
> comb and it is cheaper than an Oscar.
>
> peace
> dawg
>
> "drichard" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> No, I have not. But I will if I get the chance to check one
> out. I'm
> partial to Golden Melody harps, but am always willing to see
> if
> anything else compares.
>
> Thanks for the suggestion.
>
> Dean
>
> On Sep 9, 2:00 pm, "Wecan do it" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > "drichard" > wrote in message
>
> ....
> > You can rarely find a Hohner Golden Melody for under $30 any
> > more.
> > Ouch.
>
> > They are so easy to blow out. Have you tried the Haung Star
> > Performer?
>
> > peace
> > dawg- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Richard Crowley]

"Peter Larsen" wrote
> Your worry is that your nation is conducting a war that is financed via
> the
> printing press instead of with war bonds as it should have been, my here
> and
> now worry is the hummingbird ... O;-) ... what do I look for when I open
> it?

The war won't even make the footnotes compared to what they
are doing now. I guess I missed the reference to hummingbird?
I have no clue what you are talking about.

[Scott Dorsey]

Peter Larsen > wrote:
>You're all in for some sticker shocks, the MCA SP1 didn't get more
>expensive. Some years ago the dollar was around DKK 8 each, now it is around
>DKK 5. Apply the reverse function on the MCA SP1 and result is 63.92. The
>example is highly illustrative, ie. exaggerated, but the new stickerprice of
>USD 49.95 probably just means that the price is stable except for an added
>cost of oil and the tumble of the dollar.

On the other hand, Shure, EV, and Josephson stuff that is made in the US
with American parts should all be selling for that much cheaper in Europe....
perhaps a higher dollar might actually encourage American manufacturing
for a change.
--scott


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

[Scott Dorsey]

Arkansan Raider > wrote:
>
>Oh, heck yeah. That was the first mic I recorded on back in the day.
>That was just before we upgraded to an RE-2000.
>
>Speaking of good mics, that RE-2000 was a Hoss. Can't seem to find
>*them* either.

The RE-2000 was on the market one day and then seemed to drop out of the
catalogue shortly after EV was taken over.

I have to say I didn't like the thing, and found the top end kind of
brittle, but if you did, you might consider also looking for the RE-200
which had a very similar kind of sound to it and is probably more common.
--scott


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

[Arkansan Raider]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Arkansan Raider > wrote:
>> Oh, heck yeah. That was the first mic I recorded on back in the day.
>> That was just before we upgraded to an RE-2000.
>>
>> Speaking of good mics, that RE-2000 was a Hoss. Can't seem to find
>> *them* either.
>
> The RE-2000 was on the market one day and then seemed to drop out of the
> catalogue shortly after EV was taken over.
>
> I have to say I didn't like the thing, and found the top end kind of
> brittle, but if you did, you might consider also looking for the RE-200
> which had a very similar kind of sound to it and is probably more common.
> --scott
>
>

Ah, roger that. Thanks, Scott!


---Jeff

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Richard Crowley wrote:


> ... I guess I missed the reference to hummingbird?
> I have no clue what you are talking about.

Finally I took time to follow up. One of my (now) 3 MCA SP1's tends to hum
loudly until body and plug are touched and plug wiggled, then it goes away
and tends to stay away. What fault do I look for inside?

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Richard Crowley]

"Peter Larsen" wrote...
> Richard Crowley wrote:
>> ... I guess I missed the reference to hummingbird?
>> I have no clue what you are talking about.
>
> Finally I took time to follow up. One of my (now) 3 MCA SP1's tends to hum
> loudly until body and plug are touched and plug wiggled, then it goes away
> and tends to stay away. What fault do I look for inside?

I would look for a bad connection between circuit ground
and the case/shell. And/or a loose screw that secures the
connector to the mic shell.

[drichard]

Hi David,

What is your intended use for the mics? What do you record? While, as
others have suggested, a Shure SM57 is a pretty good general purpose
mic, I wouldn't recommend it if your primary use is acoustic guitar.
But for vocals, with a good preamp, it can work quite well. The MCA
SP-1 is a good mic, and would be a good general purpose mic. I know
you didn't want to buy used, but I would consider a used EV RE-10,
which is a good general purpose mic.

I hope that helps...

Dean

On Sep 4, 1:58*pm, Shy Picker > wrote:
> According to the good folks that responded to my other post a week or
> so age it looks like the mics I am using for recording, Excel EXM90
> Mics, are not that good. I have a couple of hundred dollars or so that
> I can spend on mics so I am wondering if I can get one or two great
> mics for that kind of money. I would like to have two mics around to
> use but maybe it would be worthwhile to spend the money on one great
> mic for now and get another one a few months down the road.
>
> What do you folks recommend? Would $200 - $250 be enough to get one or
> two mics that I won't be wanting to replace with something better
> after only a short time?
>
> Also, I have never been one that was comfortable buying used mics. I
> would rather get new mics that have a warranty.
>
> Thanks, David

[brassplyer]

On Sep 4, 1:58*pm, Shy Picker > wrote:

> What do you folks recommend?

CAD E100 - works on everything.


Marshall MXL 990 works on everything. Forget what these mics cost
listen to them.

Examples from Vimeo and Youtube. Not my videos. And of course bear in
mind what you're hearing is what made it through their encoders.
Presumably the original sounds better. You'll find numerous examples
on YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSd5FwZhgrU

http://vimeo.com/2862249


Behringer C2 (again not my videos)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_K0-H4t4giM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12BtXEyzT1M

[Mike Rivers]

brassplyer wrote:

> CAD E100 - works on everything.
> Marshall MXL 990 works on everything. Forget what these mics cost
> listen to them.

> Examples from Vimeo and Youtube. Not my videos. And of course bear in
> mind what you're hearing is what made it through their encoders.

Is this the new criterion for deciding if a mic works well?

Give me strength!!!!

[hank alrich]

Mike Rivers > wrote:

> brassplyer wrote:
>
> > CAD E100 - works on everything.
> > Marshall MXL 990 works on everything. Forget what these mics cost
> > listen to them.
>
> > Examples from Vimeo and Youtube. Not my videos. And of course bear in
> > mind what you're hearing is what made it through their encoders.
>
> Is this the new criterion for deciding if a mic works well?
>
> Give me strength!!!!

Every working mic works on everything, and through the right playback
system they all sound the same.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:

> brassplyer wrote:

>> CAD E100 - works on everything.
>> Marshall MXL 990 works on everything. Forget what these mics cost
>> listen to them.

>> Examples from Vimeo and Youtube. Not my videos. And of course bear in
>> mind what you're hearing is what made it through their encoders.

> Is this the new criterion for deciding if a mic works well?

Yes. Previously it was the AM valve-equipped car radio and in between the
walkman.

> Give me strength!!!!

OK, here is some: ___________________________

Feel better now?

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

On Mon 2037-Nov-02 07:48, Mike Rivers writes:
>> Examples from Vimeo and Youtube. Not my videos. And of course bear in
>> mind what you're hearing is what made it through their encoders.

> Is this the new criterion for deciding if a mic works well?

Yah, if you're the guy who started the whine that his
favorite pop star's concert on the tube didn't sound quite
stellar, so the folks doing the live mix must have been
incompetent, if I"m recalling him correctly.
I'd expect to hear this sort of thing from a friend of mine
bak in the midwest who shills for all sorts of MI gear.
NOthing can beat a Behringer or the latest Chinese MI gear
<rotfl>.


Regards,
Richard
--
| 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.

[brassplyer]

On Nov 2, 7:48*am, Mike Rivers > wrote:
> brassplyer wrote:
> > Examples from Vimeo and Youtube. Not my videos. And of course bear in
> > mind what you're hearing is what made it through their encoders.
>
> Is this the new criterion for deciding if a mic works well?


Yes, that's exactly what I said. You should judge no mic until it's
been run through YouTube.

YouTube is a convenient place to look for examples of something,
obviously the point being that if it still sounds good on YouTube, you
know it sounds good. While there are various factors that effect how
something sounds on YouTube, I feel confident in stating that YouTube
isn't notorious for making things sound better than they really are.

For what those mics cost, he can buy some and decide if they meet his
needs. If they're non-defective units, I guarantee they will.


On Nov 2, 7:48 am, Mike Rivers > wrote:

> Every working mic works on everything, and through the right playback
> system they all sound the same.


Through the torn factory speakers on a '64 Rambler, yeah probably.
Played through decent playback gear I would say the mics I referenced
will work better on many things better than many inexpensive dynamic
mics or some cheap gooseneck electret mic that comes bundled with
computers even though they're working mics.

I'm guessing neither you or anyone else here would bet the farm that
you could unerringly name which is which between the mics I referenced
and a Neumann or other boutique mic in a blind test.

I'm sure there are other inexpensive mics that work really well. He
asked for suggestions, I made some suggestions.

[brassplyer]

On Nov 2, 5:14*pm, brassplyer > wrote:

> On Nov 2, 7:48 am, Mike Rivers > wrote:
>
> > Every working mic works on everything, and through the right playback
> > system they all sound the same.


Error of attribution, that should read hank alrich, not Mike Rivers.

[brassplyer]

On Nov 2, 4:17 pm,
(Richard Webb) wrote:

> Yah, if you're the guy who started the whine that his
> favorite pop star's concert on the tube didn't sound quite
> stellar, so the folks doing the live mix must have been
> incompetent,


And you must be one of those who insist that as a matter of course it
*must* have been something else besides mixing incompetence.


> I'd expect to hear this sort of thing from a friend of mine
> bak in the midwest who shills for all sorts of MI gear.
> NOthing can beat a Behringer or the latest Chinese MI gear


I was simply making suggestions as he asked. For the budget he's
talking about, I don't think he's going to do better.

Though as an academic point, as previously referenced in another
reply, I wonder exactly how much material wealth you'd be willing to
put on the line that you could unfailingly pick out the "obviously
inferior" cheap mic.

A series of recordings of the exact same material - you don't get to
know which mics are being used until after the fact, which one sounds
better?

[Scott Dorsey]

brassplyer > wrote:
>
>Though as an academic point, as previously referenced in another
>reply, I wonder exactly how much material wealth you'd be willing to
>put on the line that you could unfailingly pick out the "obviously
>inferior" cheap mic.

Put 'em in the far field, and you can unfailingly pick 'em out. Up close
maybe not so easy.

>a series of recordings of the exact same material - you don't get to
>know which mics are being used until after the fact, which one sounds
>better?

Yup. I do stuff like that for a living.
--scott

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

[brassplyer]

On Nov 2, 7:57*pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

> >a series of recordings of the exact same material - you don't get to
> >know which mics are being used until after the fact, which one sounds
> >better?
>
> Yup. *I do stuff like that for a living.



Honestly not trying to be insulting, but I'm guessing what you mean is
you offer an opinion as to which mic you like in a given scenario -
"hey well that MXL sounds great on that sax in this room" - i.e. a
scenario in which you don't really stand to lose anything no matter
which mic you pick, which is far different than gambling a hefty sum
of cash that you'll unfailingly pick the boutique mics over the budget
mic on an extensive series of blind tests.

If not, kindly outline what you've been involved that sounds exactly
like what I'm talking about.

[Mike Rivers]

brassplyer wrote:

> I'm sure there are other inexpensive mics that work really well. He
> asked for suggestions, I made some suggestions.

Nothing wrong with your suggestions for low cost mics. What I don't
agree with is using YouTube playback as the reference point for
choosing mics.

If all you're interested in is making YouTube videos,
it makes little difference what mic you use and any recommendation
is as valid as any other recommendation. I wouldn't suggest that it's
important for someone to buy a $2500 Neumann when nobody who
listens to the final product will ever be affected by the difference between
that mic and a $100 MXL.

What's a good way to choose an inexpensive mic? Price, availability,
manufacturer's reputation, and eliminating anything that's obviously
inappropriate or out of the ballpark. For example, a tie tack mic which
might work well for an interview isn't likely to give as good results when
used as a drum overhead.

If the buyer is actually going to listen to mics before making a choice,
he should do so using a higher quality reference than YouTube even
if YouTube is the intended application. A mic that sounds better when
recorded AND PLAYED BACK in "CD quality" will not sound worse when
played back via YouTube on computer speakers.

But in a very general sense, I tend to think that the differences between
inexpesnsive mics is really not very significant, even when used in "pro"
applications.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
brassplyer > wrote:
>On Nov 2, 7:57=A0pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>> >a series of recordings of the exact same material - you don't get to
>> >know which mics are being used until after the fact, which one sounds
>> >better?
>>
>> Yup. =A0I do stuff like that for a living.
>
>Honestly not trying to be insulting, but I'm guessing what you mean is
>you offer an opinion as to which mic you like in a given scenario -
>"hey well that MXL sounds great on that sax in this room" - i.e. a
>scenario in which you don't really stand to lose anything no matter
>which mic you pick, which is far different than gambling a hefty sum
>of cash that you'll unfailingly pick the boutique mics over the budget
>mic on an extensive series of blind tests.
>
>If not, kindly outline what you've been involved that sounds exactly
>like what I'm talking about.

I do blind A-B tests as part of reviews. Sometimes I do double-blind
tests. Sometimes I write papers about them. Sometimes I even take
products apart to see why they sound the way they do. In the case of
the MXL 990, that's a very enlightening thing to do.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arkansan Raider]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> I do blind A-B tests as part of reviews. Sometimes I do double-blind
> tests. Sometimes I write papers about them. Sometimes I even take
> products apart to see why they sound the way they do. In the case of
> the MXL 990, that's a very enlightening thing to do.
> --scott

Scott, have you reviewed the Rode K2?

I've been very happy with mine, but I'm curious as to how it stacks up
against, say, the Neumann 87 or AKG c414. I mean, it's easily the best
mic *I've* recorded with, but I'm strictly a project studio guy--never
recorded in a major studio.

In fact, I'm kinda' curious as to how it stacks up against other Rode
mics--like the NT1000, NT2000, and NTK.

I've recorded with an EV RE2000 solo trackin' and a c414 as a part of an
acappella chorus, but that was over 15 years ago--kinda' hard to do an
A/B test like that. <grin>

---Jeff

[Scott Dorsey]

Arkansan Raider > wrote:
>
>Scott, have you reviewed the Rode K2?

I haven't but I have reviewed another one of the Rode mikes using a similar
capsule, and they do some things right.

>I've been very happy with mine, but I'm curious as to how it stacks up
>against, say, the Neumann 87 or AKG c414. I mean, it's easily the best
>mic *I've* recorded with, but I'm strictly a project studio guy--never
>recorded in a major studio.

Well, you know I am not a huge fan of the U87 or the C414 either, so take
that as you will. (Okay, I kind of like the C414/EB and the C414/TL is
useful, but I never liked the B/ULS or the TLII.)

>In fact, I'm kinda' curious as to how it stacks up against other Rode
>mics--like the NT1000, NT2000, and NTK.

It's definitely going to be smoother on the top than the NT1000 and NT2000,
and the unit to unit consistency is going to be a lot better than on any
of the Chinese mikes although maybe not up to Neumann standards.

>I've recorded with an EV RE2000 solo trackin' and a c414 as a part of an
>acappella chorus, but that was over 15 years ago--kinda' hard to do an
>A/B test like that. <grin>

The C414s come in different variants that all sound different... and I
always found the RE-2000 to sound very harsh on the top end but they
don't turn to mush in the far field like the Chinese LD mikes (and to a
lesser extent the U87) do. That might be a great thing for a dull room,
but on chorus it may mean you'll have to crank the mikes up higher than
you would with a more neutral pair of mikes, so there is reduced plosive
sound.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[drichard]

OK Scott, now you piqued my interest. What is revealing about taking
apart an MXL 990 to find out why it sounds the way it does? I'm always
looking to learn, and this seems like a good opportunity. Is it the
circuit, the body of the mic, what? And what makes it sound good or
bad in your opinion?

Thanks!

Dean

On Nov 3, 9:32*am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> In article >,
>
>
>
>
>
> brassplyer > wrote:
> >On Nov 2, 7:57=A0pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
> >> >a series of recordings of the exact same material - you don't get to
> >> >know which mics are being used until after the fact, which one sounds
> >> >better?
>
> >> Yup. =A0I do stuff like that for a living.
>
> >Honestly not trying to be insulting, but I'm guessing what you mean is
> >you offer an opinion as to which mic you like in a given scenario -
> >"hey well that MXL sounds great on that sax in this room" - i.e. a
> >scenario in which you don't really stand to lose anything no matter
> >which mic you pick, which is far different than gambling a hefty sum
> >of cash that you'll unfailingly pick the boutique mics over the budget
> >mic on an extensive series of blind tests.
>
> >If not, kindly outline what you've been involved that sounds exactly
> >like what I'm talking about.
>
> I do blind A-B tests as part of reviews. * Sometimes I do double-blind
> tests. *Sometimes I write papers about them. *Sometimes I even take
> products apart to see why they sound the way they do. *In the case of
> the MXL 990, that's a very enlightening thing to do.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. *C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Arkansan Raider]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Arkansan Raider > wrote:
>> Scott, have you reviewed the Rode K2?
>
> I haven't but I have reviewed another one of the Rode mikes using a similar
> capsule, and they do some things right.
>
>> I've been very happy with mine, but I'm curious as to how it stacks up
>> against, say, the Neumann 87 or AKG c414. I mean, it's easily the best
>> mic *I've* recorded with, but I'm strictly a project studio guy--never
>> recorded in a major studio.
>
> Well, you know I am not a huge fan of the U87 or the C414 either, so take
> that as you will. (Okay, I kind of like the C414/EB and the C414/TL is
> useful, but I never liked the B/ULS or the TLII.)
>
>> In fact, I'm kinda' curious as to how it stacks up against other Rode
>> mics--like the NT1000, NT2000, and NTK.
>
> It's definitely going to be smoother on the top than the NT1000 and NT2000,
> and the unit to unit consistency is going to be a lot better than on any
> of the Chinese mikes although maybe not up to Neumann standards.
>
>> I've recorded with an EV RE2000 solo trackin' and a c414 as a part of an
>> acappella chorus, but that was over 15 years ago--kinda' hard to do an
>> A/B test like that. <grin>
>
> The C414s come in different variants that all sound different... and I
> always found the RE-2000 to sound very harsh on the top end but they
> don't turn to mush in the far field like the Chinese LD mikes (and to a
> lesser extent the U87) do. That might be a great thing for a dull room,
> but on chorus it may mean you'll have to crank the mikes up higher than
> you would with a more neutral pair of mikes, so there is reduced plosive
> sound.
> --scott

Wow, that was quick!

Thanks for your opinions, Scott.

I'd like to be able to step out and use some other mics, but I've got
that Italian disease called myfundsrlo. I happened to have a buddy who
uses a K2 and I got to record with it, and I found that I really liked it.

---Jeff

[drichard]

Hi Scott,

To add to my previous question, can you recommend any of the
inexpensive mics as particularly good or bad? I'm very much a part-
timer, so price matters to me, but I always look to get the best bang
for my buck. But I don't have the technical expertise to evaluate
capsules, electronics, or body styles. I have to evaluate using my
ears, which is sometimes OK, but I'm without a controlled comparison
environment, so many of my efforts are subjective on a given day. And
I don't trust evaluations made in a store environment.

For example, I bought a couple of MXL603's a couple of years ago, but
something about them bothered me. They sounded a little harsh, and I
sold them. But I have an even more inexpensive pair of MCA SP-1's and
I think they sound good. Also, I bought a couple of used EV mics
(RE-10, RE-11's) based on yours and a few others comments, and have
not been disappointed.

I'm always interested in your opinions, as well as those of the other
experienced and knowledgeable people around here.

Thanks,

Dean

On Nov 3, 9:32*am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> In article >,
>
>
>
>
>
> brassplyer > wrote:
> >On Nov 2, 7:57=A0pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
> >> >a series of recordings of the exact same material - you don't get to
> >> >know which mics are being used until after the fact, which one sounds
> >> >better?
>
> >> Yup. =A0I do stuff like that for a living.
>
> >Honestly not trying to be insulting, but I'm guessing what you mean is
> >you offer an opinion as to which mic you like in a given scenario -
> >"hey well that MXL sounds great on that sax in this room" - i.e. a
> >scenario in which you don't really stand to lose anything no matter
> >which mic you pick, which is far different than gambling a hefty sum
> >of cash that you'll unfailingly pick the boutique mics over the budget
> >mic on an extensive series of blind tests.
>
> >If not, kindly outline what you've been involved that sounds exactly
> >like what I'm talking about.
>
> I do blind A-B tests as part of reviews. * Sometimes I do double-blind
> tests. *Sometimes I write papers about them. *Sometimes I even take
> products apart to see why they sound the way they do. *In the case of
> the MXL 990, that's a very enlightening thing to do.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. *C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Scott Dorsey]

drichard > wrote:
>OK Scott, now you piqued my interest. What is revealing about taking
>apart an MXL 990 to find out why it sounds the way it does? I'm always
>looking to learn, and this seems like a good opportunity. Is it the
>circuit, the body of the mic, what? And what makes it sound good or
>bad in your opinion?

The circuit isn't anything unusual, but take a look at the output transformer.

Tap various parts of the body. Note that the entire body is more or less
resonant. There has been some attempt to use the case tube to stiffen the
internals but tap around with a pencil and listen to the resonances and you
will see how effective it is.

Take the grille off and talk into it. Look at all of the flat reflective
surfaces inside the grille and below the capsule. Meausure with a ruler
and figure out where the narrow resonances that result show up.

Don't even look at the capsule, it's too scary in there. It looks like a
familiar German capsule, but it's not. Shine a laser pointer off of it and
see how flat the diaphragm is.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[brassplyer]

On Nov 3, 8:32 am, Mike Rivers > wrote:
> brassplyer wrote:
> > I'm sure there are other inexpensive mics that work really well. He
> > asked for suggestions, I made some suggestions.
>
> Nothing wrong with your suggestions for low cost mics. What I don't
> agree with is using YouTube playback as the reference point for
> choosing mics.


It's not the definitive test but it's -a- way to hear them in use. It
can be a starting point to demonstrate that the mic can sound decent.


> If all you're interested in is making YouTube videos,
> it makes little difference what mic you use


I don't know how familiar you are with YouTube but they've made
changes to the available quality of encoding, even accommodating a
certain flavor of HD, which Vimeo had already been doing for some
time. If uploaded with a friendly codec, the sound can be on par with
a good .mp3. There's definitely a difference between say a condenser
like these and a webcam mic, SM58, etc. You can hear proximity effect,
difference in presence and high freq sensitivity betw a condenser &
say an SM58, hear if the mic breaks up under high SPL - I'd wager you
could hear differences in flavor between different condensers if
quality audio of the right codec is uploaded.

In fact, here's a quickie demo I put together. Used two mics - an
RS120, a Shure made dynamic Radio Shack sold a few years back and a
Marshall MXL990.

Both recording an acoustic 6 string, about 3 inches or so from the
12th fret, at 90 degrees, both going through the same pre, obviously
with each using the appropriate circuit. No compression, no EQ other
than using the 70hz rolloff switch on the pre on both to get the
untweaked sound of the mics for an apples/apples comparison. I did
some adjusting on the levels to get them approximately even. There's
some noise floor differences since the Shure mic isn't as hot as the
MXL. Not in a booth, just sitting in front of my computer.

The point isn't my hacker beginner guitar chops, but the difference in
sound - tell me you can't hear a profound difference between them.
It's not true HD - I used 1280x480 to invoke the HD option for the
audio, though the differences are still quite apparent without the
HD.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-rpfhbVzKs

No matter where he hears them initially ultimately he'll need to buy
or borrow one or several different mics to try out in the environment
where he'll be recording. If he gets unacceptable results he needs to
determine if the problem is the mic or something else. If using the
mics I mentioned, the first place I'd look is at the something else.

[Mike Rivers]

brassplyer wrote:

> I don't know how familiar you are with YouTube but they've made
> changes to the available quality of encoding, even accommodating a
> certain flavor of HD, which Vimeo had already been doing for some
> time. If uploaded with a friendly codec, the sound can be on par with
> a good .mp3.

And that's a good way to test a microphone? With a "good" MP3? Now I
know we aren't going to turn the world around with this discussion, and
people will continue to listen to music as MP3 files. But those people
won't be comparing microphones, they'll be enjoying the music.

I've heard about the higher resolution YouTube format, but it really
doesn't affect me, and probably only matters to the few who have a
computer as an integral part of a decent home theater system. When
someone sends me a link to a YouTube video and I think it might be
worth a look, I do what every red blooded 'mer'can boy does and click
on the link from the same computer that I'm reading the message on,
the one with the Radio Shack Minimus 7 speakers (admittedly better
than most other red blooded 'mer'can boys listen on, but I don't go
to YouTube with my studio computer to listen to something on my
real monitors.

And also, I don't go chasing codecs. If someone wants to show me
what a microphone sounds like, they're welcome to stick an audio
CD in the mail to me. I'll be happy to give it a listen. I have a stack
of such CDs that I've picked up at trade shows, from the likes of
BLUE, Royer, AEA, and other such purveyors of fine microphones.
I don't really care about the difference between a webcam mic and
an SM58. I don't use webcam mics, and I have a couple of SM58s
that I can use where they're appropriate.

> In fact, here's a quickie demo I put together. Used two mics - an
> RS120, a Shure made dynamic Radio Shack sold a few years back and a
> Marshall MXL990.

I listened to your demo. I heard a little difference between them, but
hardly
anything I'd consider profound. I suppose if that's all I had, I would
make a
choice between them, but I'd do it listening on my own system. If I had to
choose based on your YouTube demo, I wouldn't agonize over it, I'd use
either one.

Now I just happen to have an MXL 990, and I guess the closest I have to
your Radio Shack mic is an SM57. Between the two, I'd probably choose
the SM57 but depending on the guitar part, I might prefer the brighter
sound of the MXL if there wasn't much low end to get distorted.

> No matter where he hears them initially ultimately he'll need to buy
> or borrow one or several different mics to try out in the environment
> where he'll be recording.

Sure, that's the right way to make a choice, but most people don't do
that, at
least not while they're just beginning. They rarely have good
monitoring, they
don't have much listening experience, and they often doubt their own
judgment
when they actually do hear something worth noticing. They tend to buy on the
recommendation of others, or reviews, or what the got for a good price
on eBay.
I wish we could change that, but it's not likely. The ones who stick
with it
eventually get the hang of listening and experimenting and choosing the best
mic for the job. The rest make YouTube videos that get the point across but
are hardly high fidelity.

[matty b.]

On Nov 3, 2:16 pm, brassplyer > wrote:
> On Nov 3, 8:32 am, Mike Rivers > wrote:
>
> > brassplyer wrote:
> > > I'm sure there are other inexpensive mics that work really well. He
> > > asked for suggestions, I made some suggestions.
>
> > Nothing wrong with your suggestions for low cost mics. What I don't
> > agree with is using YouTube playback as the reference point for
> > choosing mics.
>
> It's not the definitive test but it's -a- way to hear them in use. It
> can be a starting point to demonstrate that the mic can sound decent.
>
> > If all you're interested in is making YouTube videos,
> > it makes little difference what mic you use
>
> I don't know how familiar you are with YouTube but they've made
> changes to the available quality of encoding, even accommodating a
> certain flavor of HD, which Vimeo had already been doing for some
> time. If uploaded with a friendly codec, the sound can be on par with
> a good .mp3. There's definitely a difference between say a condenser
> like these and a webcam mic, SM58, etc. You can hear proximity effect,
> difference in presence and high freq sensitivity betw a condenser &
> say an SM58, hear if the mic breaks up under high SPL - I'd wager you
> could hear differences in flavor between different condensers if
> quality audio of the right codec is uploaded.
>
> In fact, here's a quickie demo I put together. Used two mics - an
> RS120, a Shure made dynamic Radio Shack sold a few years back and a
> Marshall MXL990.
>
> Both recording an acoustic 6 string, about 3 inches or so from the
> 12th fret, at 90 degrees, both going through the same pre, obviously
> with each using the appropriate circuit. No compression, no EQ other
> than using the 70hz rolloff switch on the pre on both to get the
> untweaked sound of the mics for an apples/apples comparison. I did
> some adjusting on the levels to get them approximately even. There's
> some noise floor differences since the Shure mic isn't as hot as the
> MXL. Not in a booth, just sitting in front of my computer.
>
> The point isn't my hacker beginner guitar chops, but the difference in
> sound - tell me you can't hear a profound difference between them.
> It's not true HD - I used 1280x480 to invoke the HD option for the
> audio, though the differences are still quite apparent without the
> HD.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-rpfhbVzKs
>
> No matter where he hears them initially ultimately he'll need to buy
> or borrow one or several different mics to try out in the environment
> where he'll be recording. If he gets unacceptable results he needs to
> determine if the problem is the mic or something else. If using the
> mics I mentioned, the first place I'd look is at the something else.

yea, one sounds dynamicish and one sounds condenserish because a
little flag popped up telling what I was listening to ... but if I
close my eyes they both sound terrible to me. Then again I never liked
micing the 12th fret with any mic in certain rooms anyways.

While I agree a good sounding mic, pre-amp and material combo on
youtube is promising the same goes in reverse ... youtube can make a
great mic, pre-amp and material combo sound like crap.

-matt (the jerk)

[brassplyer]

On Nov 3, 6:15*pm, Mike Rivers > wrote:

> And that's a good way to test a microphone? With a "good" MP3?


You're missing the point. You inserted various eye-rolling and
groaning about "is this the definitive test now?" or words to that
effect. I never stated or implied this was the last word in hi-fi
audio, I offered the links as a casual introduction to be able to hear
the mics. The audio may not be the best possible, but in its current
state of development, it's certainly more than good enough to get an
idea of what the mics sound like - certainly to make an initial
determination that they're quite usable. The point wasn't to get hung
up on YouTube as an end in itself but as a viable tool as a starting
point.

This notion that it doesn't matter what mic you use on YouTube - i.e.
that the fidelity is so crappy you simply can't distinguish one mic
from another is baloney, you most certainly can.


> And also, I don't go chasing codecs. If someone wants to show me
> what a microphone sounds like, they're welcome to stick an audio
> CD in the mail to me.


We're talking about someone who's a recording novice looking for
suggestions for decent quality budget mics. I believe the quality of
the mics I referenced is more than good enough to exceed his ability
to use them.


> I listened to your demo. I heard a little difference between them, but
> hardly anything I'd consider profound.


The debate over how profound it is aside, the fact is you *can* hear a
difference - the point being a demonstration to debunk the notion that
"it makes no difference". It would make a further difference if I were
to take more care as far as positioning & tweaking of the audio.

If you were going to make a recording for a band or orchestra that you
knew would be heard ONLY as an .mp3 download, does that mean you'd mic
everyone with a POS dynamic mic because "it's just an mp3" or would
you make a quality recording? Of course you'd do the latter, because
the difference *can* be heard.

[David Aguilera]

drichard wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> What is your intended use for the mics? What do you record? While, as
> others have suggested, a Shure SM57 is a pretty good general purpose
> mic, I wouldn't recommend it if your primary use is acoustic guitar.
> But for vocals, with a good preamp, it can work quite well. The MCA
> SP-1 is a good mic, and would be a good general purpose mic. I know
> you didn't want to buy used, but I would consider a used EV RE-10,
> which is a good general purpose mic.
>
> I hope that helps...
>
> Dean
>
> On Sep 4, 1:58 pm, Shy Picker > wrote:
>> According to the good folks that responded to my other post a week or
>> so age it looks like the mics I am using for recording, Excel EXM90
>> Mics, are not that good. I have a couple of hundred dollars or so that
>> I can spend on mics so I am wondering if I can get one or two great
>> mics for that kind of money. I would like to have two mics around to
>> use but maybe it would be worthwhile to spend the money on one great
>> mic for now and get another one a few months down the road.
>>
>> What do you folks recommend? Would $200 - $250 be enough to get one or
>> two mics that I won't be wanting to replace with something better
>> after only a short time?
>>
>> Also, I have never been one that was comfortable buying used mics. I
>> would rather get new mics that have a warranty.
>>
>> Thanks, David
>

David,

Your intended use for the mic is of the utmost importance. If you are
recording a solo acoustic guitr, your mic choice may be different than
if you're putting it into a mix with other instruments.

Who is your audience?

What preamp are you using?

Let's see if we can help the guy.

David

[brassplyer]

On Nov 3, 6:33*pm, "matty b." > wrote:

> yea, one sounds dynamicish and one sounds
> condenserish because a little flag popped up
> telling what I was listening to


Which is it - you can hear a difference or you can't? You do know you
can turn off the annotations, right?


> While I agree a good sounding mic, pre-amp and material combo on
> youtube is promising the same goes in reverse ... youtube can make a
> great mic, pre-amp and material combo sound like crap.


There's a flaw in your logic. You make it sound like you can upload a
file once and then an hour later upload a file using the same audio
and they'll sound profoundly different. If you consistently upload
better sounding audio using a codec YouTube gets along with, you're
going to get consistently better sounding YouTube video.

[Mike Rivers]

brassplyer wrote:

> You're missing the point. You inserted various eye-rolling and
> groaning about "is this the definitive test now?" or words to that
> effect. I never stated or implied this was the last word in hi-fi
> audio, I offered the links as a casual introduction to be able to hear
> the mics.

And what I was implying is that it doesn't matter if you hear the mics or
not if that's the only way you're going to hear them. All that tells you
is that
they're capable of converting sound into electricity.

> The audio may not be the best possible, but in its current
> state of development, it's certainly more than good enough to get an
> idea of what the mics sound like - certainly to make an initial
> determination that they're quite usable.

And from your demo, I would have said that they're both usable for
making a YouTube video. If that's all I wanted to do, I could buy either
one, or probably any one of a dozen others, and it would be satisfactory.
But if I wanted to make a CD for sale, and was going to take some care
with the recording, treat my room, get decent monitors, and work on
getting a really good sound that people could hear was good if they
listened to at least a CD-resolution recording on good playback equipment,
then I probably would reject both of your sample mics. But I couldn't do
that by listening to your YouTube video.

> The point wasn't to get hung
> up on YouTube as an end in itself but as a viable tool as a starting
> point.

So then, what do you do after YouTube? You hear a dozen mics, you
can't really rule any of them out because YouTube AND THE USUAL
PLAYBACK SYSTEM is worse than any of the mics.

> This notion that it doesn't matter what mic you use on YouTube - i.e.
> that the fidelity is so crappy you simply can't distinguish one mic
> from another is baloney, you most certainly can.

Prove it to me. I acknowledged that I could hear a difference between
the two mics on your demo, but I couldn't say that I'd choose one over
the other, even for making a YouTube video.

> We're talking about someone who's a recording novice looking for
> suggestions for decent quality budget mics.

I understand that. So I tell them to buy this or that and if they do,
they'll
have something that they can work with. No need for them to try to
decide for themselves. They don't know enough to do that yet. But that's
me (or maybe Scott, or Hank, or Paul or a few others who have been
around this for years) giving the advice. If the advice comes from someone
who only listens to playbacks on his computer, I don't consider that to be
particularly valid.

> I believe the quality of
> the mics I referenced is more than good enough to exceed his ability
> to use them.

I agree. So why saddle him with making a choice based on a demonstration
that hides the best and worst characteristics of each one. To the
novice, there
are more practical considerations than the difference in sound. If he's
using
the built-in sound card in his computer I'd tell him to get the Radio Shack
mic because it doesn't require Phantom power. If he has a fair quality audio
interface with balanced inputs and phantom power, then he might want to
look into a condenser mic.

> The debate over how profound it is aside

No it isn't You said there was a profound difference, I said that with this
demo, there wasn't. Who's got the tin ear, or who's got the better
imagination?

> the fact is you *can* hear a
> difference - the point being a demonstration to debunk the notion that
> "it makes no difference".

There are differences and there are differences. It doesn't make any
difference
(to me) which mic is used. But yes, there's a difference between the
sound of the
mics. But given the medium, the difference is irrelevant, and really
ambiguous.

> It would make a further difference if I were
> to take more care as far as positioning & tweaking of the audio.

This is true with any mic and any recording medium.

> If you were going to make a recording for a band or orchestra that you
> knew would be heard ONLY as an .mp3 download, does that mean you'd mic
> everyone with a POS dynamic mic because "it's just an mp3" or would
> you make a quality recording? Of course you'd do the latter, because
> the difference *can* be heard.

No, I'd do the latter because then I'd know that I had the best
recording I could
make (within whatever constraints there were) and that it was not
limited by the
choice of microphone. What's an MP3 today might be a CD or DVD another day,
and I wouldn't want a CD to sound like it was recorded with a crappy mic
if I
could avoid it.

[Richard Crowley]

"brassplyer" wrote ...
> This notion that it doesn't matter what mic you use on YouTube - i.e.
> that the fidelity is so crappy you simply can't distinguish one mic
> from another is baloney, you most certainly can.

Prove it.

> The debate over how profound it is aside, the fact is you *can* hear a
> difference - the point being a demonstration to debunk the notion that
> "it makes no difference". It would make a further difference if I were
> to take more care as far as positioning & tweaking of the audio.

So you are saying that on YouTube you can prove that different
mics sound "different". So what? That doesn't seem important
enough to even waste time discussing it.

> If you were going to make a recording for a band or orchestra
> that you knew would be heard ONLY as an .mp3 download,
> does that mean you'd mic everyone with a POS dynamic mic
> because "it's just an mp3" or would you make a quality recording?
> Of course you'd do the latter, because the difference *can* be heard.

Did you intend for that to make any sense?

[brassplyer]

On Nov 3, 8:26*pm, Mike Rivers > wrote:
> brassplyer wrote:
> > You're missing the point. You inserted various eye-rolling and
> > groaning about "is this the definitive test now?" or words to that
> > effect. I never stated or implied this was the last word in hi-fi
> > audio, I offered the links as a casual introduction to be able to hear
> > the mics.
>
> And what I was implying is that it doesn't matter if you hear the mics or
> not if that's the only way you're going to hear them.


Again, it's a way to hear them initially. Is it imperative? Probably
not, but also not without value.


> All that tells you
> is that they're capable of converting sound into electricity.


You're hyperbolizing.

I have a pair of crappy dynamics I got years ago that were on all-but-
free clearance at Radio Shack that I've kept only because I wouldn't
get enough for them to be worth the effort of selling them and I might
find a use for them some day. They work but they sound like mud. I
guarantee you'd hear a difference on Youtube between them and the
other dynamic I demo'd let alone the MXL.


> *> The point wasn't to get hung
>
> > up on YouTube as an end in itself but as a viable tool as a starting
> > point.
>
> So then, what do you do after YouTube?


Weren't you the one who said they should demo them at the retail
outlet? Going by your current logic, you shouldn't even do that.

What you do after Youtube is buy one or a pair and see what they sound
like going through your gear. Personally, I've bought all but maybe
one mic I've had sight unseen, but I also didn't have access to
YouTube etc. for much of the time either.

However, how the YouTube demo could be useful is if you hear that
you're not getting it to sound at least as good as the guy on YouTube,
you investigate why not. Assuming the mic's not defective, where am I
falling short?


> > This notion that it doesn't matter what mic you use on YouTube - i.e.
> > that the fidelity is so crappy you simply can't distinguish one mic
> > from another is baloney, you most certainly can.
>
> Prove it to me. I acknowledged that I could hear a difference between
> the two mics on your demo, but I couldn't say that I'd choose one over
> the other


The proof is that you've already said you could hear a difference. The
objective wasn't to reach a conclusion as to which is "better", it was
to demonstrate yes, you can discern a difference, no all mics don't
sound alike on YouTube.

Personally, there's no way I'd choose the dynamic over the MXL -
particularly if the guitar was in the spotlight because I know what
the ultimate potential is - the condenser captures far more of the
spectrum of the guitar's sound. I can hear more of "the wood". There's
a sheen that's apparent with the condenser that's simply absent from
the dynamic. I don't think it's possible that you don't already know
this.

If I were trying to really make the recording pretty, besides doing
some more experimenting with mic position and eq tweaking, I'd record
in stereo and I wouldn't do it sitting in front of the computer 6 feet
from an open window.


> > If you were going to make a recording for a band or orchestra that you
> > knew would be heard ONLY as an .mp3 download, does that mean you'd mic
> > everyone with a POS dynamic mic because "it's just an mp3" or would
> > you make a quality recording? Of course you'd do the latter, because
> > the difference *can* be heard.
>
> No, I'd do the latter because then I'd know that I had the best
> recording I could make (within whatever constraints there were) and
> that it was not limited by the choice of microphone.


I'd ask if you're denying the difference would be readily obvious even
with an .mp3 but I already know you know it would be, and I also know
that you're going to continue to obfuscate.

[Scott Dorsey]

brassplyer wrote:
>
> I don't know how familiar you are with YouTube but they've made
> changes to the available quality of encoding, even accommodating a
> certain flavor of HD, which Vimeo had already been doing for some
> time. If uploaded with a friendly codec, the sound can be on par with
> a good .mp3.

That's right! And if you cook it right, industrial waste can taste
just as good as raw sewage!
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[brassplyer]

On Nov 3, 10:09*pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

> That's right! *And if you cook it right, industrial waste can taste
> just as good as raw sewage!



Must be hyperbole night at RAP

[brassplyer]

On Nov 3, 9:35*pm, "Richard Crowley" > wrote:
> "brassplyer" wrote ...
>
> > This notion that it doesn't matter what mic you use on YouTube - i.e.
> > that the fidelity is so crappy you simply can't distinguish one mic
> > from another is baloney, you most certainly can.
>
> Prove it.


Mike Rivers acknowledged he could hear a difference between the two
mics I demo'd. I can hear the difference.

If you're of a mind to insist to the point of absurdity that you can't
by all means feel free.


> So you are saying that on YouTube you can prove that different
> mics sound "different". So what?


Since you asked, the "so what" is that it was previously asserted that
different mics won't sound different. It wasn't to claim YouTube
represents the pinnacle of audio reproduction or that the mics I
mentioned are unsurpassed by any other in any way, but that claims of
YouTube audio being so abysmal that you can't discern one mic from
another are curmudgeonly hyperbole.


> That doesn't seem important
> enough to even waste time discussing it.


And yet you and a couple of others are.


> > If you were going to make a recording for a band or orchestra
> > that you knew would be heard ONLY as an .mp3 download,
> > does that mean you'd mic everyone with a POS dynamic mic
> > because "it's just an mp3" or would you make a quality recording?
> > Of course you'd do the latter, because the difference *can* be heard.
>
> Did you intend for that to make any sense?


If you include the context in which it was said it makes perfect
sense. The claim was made on the order that "it didn't matter what mic
was used" if it's "just" an mp3 since mp3 fidelity is so **** poor you
can't tell. Bull****, you most certainly can tell.

This entire line of debate originated from pointless bitching
mischaracterizing the fact that I pointed the OP to some Youtube and
Vimeo examples of mics I suggested. A couple of folks took the time to
make ridiculous, inaccurate assertions, I took the time to shoot them
down.

It almost sounds like some of you feel animosity toward YouTube
because they don't stream uncompressed audio and people don't listen
to it from a tuned mixing room through top of the line gear. None of
which is necessary for it to be possible to hear differences in
quality of audio, or in this case to determine that a given mic might
be worth checking out.

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

On Tue 2037-Nov-03 20:26, Mike Rivers writes:
>> The audio may not be the best possible, but in its current
>> state of development, it's certainly more than good enough to get an
>> idea of what the mics sound like - certainly to make an initial
>> determination that they're quite usable.

> And from your demo, I would have said that they're both usable for
> making a YouTube video. If that's all I wanted to do, I could buy
> either one, or probably any one of a dozen others, and it would be
> satisfactory. But if I wanted to make a CD for sale, and was going
> to take some care with the recording, treat my room, get decent
> monitors, and work on getting a really good sound that people could
> hear was good if they listened to at least a CD-resolution recording
> on good playback equipment, then I probably would reject both of
> your sample mics. But I couldn't do that by listening to your
> YouTube video.


WOuld agree with that assessment. IF I"m wanting to listen
critically to make judgments I don't want to have to listen
through a less than suitable playback chain.

>> If you were going to make a recording for a band or orchestra that you
>> knew would be heard ONLY as an .mp3 download, does that mean you'd mic
>> everyone with a POS dynamic mic because "it's just an mp3" or would
>> you make a quality recording? Of course you'd do the latter, because
>> the difference *can* be heard.

> No, I'd do the latter because then I'd know that I had the best
> recording I could
> make (within whatever constraints there were) and that it was not
> limited by the
> choice of microphone. What's an MP3 today might be a CD or DVD
> another day, and I wouldn't want a CD to sound like it was recorded
> with a crappy mic if I
> could avoid it.


I'd also want to be able to hear what I was doing while I
was working with the recording in full resolution, captured properly. My recording's going to have enough going against it in the lossy compression process, the least i can do with it is give it the best quality possible going in.

I wouldn't make a subjective judgment on anything audio
after listening to a lossy format such as mp3 or yOutube.
Just isn't how I work.

Regards,
Richard
--
| 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.

[brassplyer]

On Nov 4, 4:31*am,
(Richard Webb) wrote:
> > But I couldn't do that by listening to your
> > YouTube video.
>
> WOuld agree with that assessment.


Yet you also miss the point of the exercise, which was only to prove
the point that yes, a difference can be heard, not "which mic is
better".


> I wouldn't make a subjective judgment on anything audio
> after listening to a lossy format such as mp3 or yOutube.



And at no time was any assertion made that one should make a final,
definitive conclusion based on such other than "it might be worth
checking out and trying it for myself".

But let's clarify something - you're claiming that under no
circumstances, at *any* quality level currently available with .mp3 or
any other typical online audio format would you be able to form any
impression whatsoever of any element of a recording.

You and I both know that's just nonsense.

[Mike Rivers]

brassplyer wrote:

> Since you asked, the "so what" is that it was previously asserted that
> different mics won't sound different.

I don't know that anyone ever said exactly that. What I think I said,
and what
others have implied, is that given the constraints of the medium, the
differences
don't matter, at least not to anyone who isn't intent on trying to hear
a difference.
But there are many instances for which I could say the same thing even with
high resolution, uncompressed, wide band recording. But for other
instances,
different mics can offer more mixing options and bring out details that
might be
noticeable if not smeard over by data reduction or poor quality playback
equipment.

> If you include the context in which it was said it makes perfect
> sense. The claim was made on the order that "it didn't matter what mic
> was used" if it's "just" an mp3 since mp3 fidelity is so **** poor you
> can't tell. Bull****, you most certainly can tell.

But what can you tell, and who can tell it?

> It almost sounds like some of you feel animosity toward YouTube
> because they don't stream uncompressed audio and people don't listen
> to it from a tuned mixing room through top of the line gear.

Nothing like that at all. YouTube is great. But not for its audio
quality, for
its entertainment and educational value. I wouldn't use a cassette recording
to evaluate microphones, but I've certainly enjoyed plenty of cassettes when
that was the popular medium. Same with YouTube.

[Mike Rivers]

brassplyer wrote:

> What you do after Youtube is buy one or a pair and see what they sound
> like going through your gear.

You could do that before YouTube, too. But a lot of people are hesitant to
do that. First off, what do you do if you decide you don't care for the mic
that you bought? Some stores won't allow you to return microphones, claiming
"health reasons" so you're either stuck with your purchase or you have to
sell the mic yourself, usually at some loss. And even if you buy from a
dealer
who does take returns, I'm amazed at the number of people who don't feel
comfortable about returning something that doesn't work for them. It's too
much trouble to contact the dealer, get a return authorization, pack it up,
pay for shipping, etc.

That's not a big deal if you're "stuck" with a $50 mic - it's bound to
be good
for something, sometime. But if you bought a $500 mic, found that it didn't
sound any bettter than the $100 mic you already have, then what?

Also, unless it's a mechanical or electrical issue (like not having phantom
power or the wrong kind of connector), it's not really a matter of how the
mic will work with your GEAR, but more significantly, for your PROJECTS.
You might get a mic that works really well with a kick drum, but if you
need to record vocals or acoustic guitars, it could be entirely wrong. There
are plenty of mics that I wouldn't mind using on anything (on the cheap,
an SM57 is one) but if I was looking for the perfect mic for MY voice,
and on
a particular song, I'd want to be able to do a shootout that couldn't be
done on YouTube.

> Personally, I've bought all but maybe one mic I've had sight unseen

Me, too, but then I've only bought mics that have a good reputation and
which I know I've heard before - on real records and CDs, or on stage. And
I have some reason for buying that particular microphone.

> However, how the YouTube demo could be useful is if you hear that
> you're not getting it to sound at least as good as the guy on YouTube,
> you investigate why not.

That's an entirely different thing. You may learn something about how to
make better recordings, and that's never a bad thing. But if that were the
goal, rather than having a seascape to watch while listening ot the mics,
it would be helpful if the video showed where the mics were placed, and
how the sound changes when they're moved around. That way, even if
the differences were pretty subtle and seemed insignificant on their own,
you could try the same experiments with your own system and hear the
differences much more clearly.

> The proof is that you've already said you could hear a difference. The
> objective wasn't to reach a conclusion as to which is "better", it was
> to demonstrate yes, you can discern a difference, no all mics don't
> sound alike on YouTube.

And again, I ask - why is this important?

> Personally, there's no way I'd choose the dynamic over the MXL -
> particularly if the guitar was in the spotlight because I know what
> the ultimate potential is - the condenser captures far more of the
> spectrum of the guitar's sound. I can hear more of "the wood". There's
> a sheen that's apparent with the condenser that's simply absent from
> the dynamic. I don't think it's possible that you don't already know
> this.

I know that's true in general, but if I didn't already know it, I couldn't
say from the YouTube demo that I was hearing "more wood" or more
"spectrum."

[Arny Krueger]

"brassplyer" > wrote in message

> On Nov 3, 10:09 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>> That's right! And if you cook it right, industrial waste
>> can taste just as good as raw sewage!

> Must be hyperbole night at RAP

Well, it is some of the usual old-timer anxiety about technology. And since
I'm an old-timer too, I have a little angst to share as well.

Like them, I'm trying to figure out what's the point of the exercise.

If the point were that YouTube HD is a true high fidelity medium, the usual
way to do that is to take something that has known high quality and
diagnostic properties, and run it through YouTube and compare it to the
original. This is one of those tests that is very easy to do with a lot of
experimental controls, and even do a proper time-synched, level-matched, ABX
or other DBT.

That would let us get some idea if your assertions about YouTube HD have any
legs to stand on. If you have any questions about how to do such a thing,
check out the Hydrogen Audio Forum (Google is your friend). They love this
sort of thing and have relevant expertise and free tools running out of
their ears. ;-)

If the point were that MXL 990s are really pretty good mics, then you need
to look at the collected works of a certain Mr. Ty Ford. He has a bunch of
microphone comparisons posted on the web. "Ty Ford Microphone test" got me
immediate pay dirt on Google. Interestingly enough, many of Ty's videos
were done with QuickTime, which in my book is only a little less suspect
than YouTube. But, since the locals here have not been trashing his videos
like they seem to be trashing yours, you might want to see what he's doing
right, other than being a well-respected old timer named Ty Ford. ;-)

[hank alrich]

Arny Krueger > wrote:

> "brassplyer" > wrote in message
>
> > On Nov 3, 10:09 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> >
> >> That's right! And if you cook it right, industrial waste
> >> can taste just as good as raw sewage!
>
> > Must be hyperbole night at RAP
>
> Well, it is some of the usual old-timer anxiety about technology. And since
> I'm an old-timer too, I have a little angst to share as well.
>
> Like them, I'm trying to figure out what's the point of the exercise.
>
> If the point were that YouTube HD is a true high fidelity medium, the usual
> way to do that is to take something that has known high quality and
> diagnostic properties, and run it through YouTube and compare it to the
> original. This is one of those tests that is very easy to do with a lot of
> experimental controls, and even do a proper time-synched, level-matched, ABX
> or other DBT.
>
> That would let us get some idea if your assertions about YouTube HD have any
> legs to stand on. If you have any questions about how to do such a thing,
> check out the Hydrogen Audio Forum (Google is your friend). They love this
> sort of thing and have relevant expertise and free tools running out of
> their ears. ;-)
>
> If the point were that MXL 990s are really pretty good mics, then you need
> to look at the collected works of a certain Mr. Ty Ford. He has a bunch of
> microphone comparisons posted on the web. "Ty Ford Microphone test" got me
> immediate pay dirt on Google. Interestingly enough, many of Ty's videos
> were done with QuickTime, which in my book is only a little less suspect
> than YouTube. But, since the locals here have not been trashing his videos
> like they seem to be trashing yours, you might want to see what he's doing
> right, other than being a well-respected old timer named Ty Ford. ;-)

One's own voice is a fascinating test signal. I have often reasonably
accurately assessed a mic just by speaking into it and hearing myself in
cans or via playback over a decent system. Moving the mic around gts one
an idea of off-axis performance, which is where I often find big
differences between lesser and greater mics.

Yesterday in a nice studio I had the chance to sing into three different
LDC's, an AKG C414TLII, a Neumann U-87, and a Klaus Heyne modified U-67.
We're recording a trio of two vocals, either two guitars, or a guitar
and a fiddle or mandolin, and a cellist. We're tracking live without
headphones and we were working through mic combos seeking the best setup
to get a good sound from each source and the most favorable rejection,
also to be thought of as the most favorable constructive interference.

I sound like **** over the AKG, okay over the 87, and as my daughter
said, like me on the 67. Was interesting. Playback can be over NS10's, a
nice set of smaller Genelecs, or a pair of Dunleavy's taller than I am.

I've not spent enough time (just don't have it) watching YouTube, but so
far I haven't been impressed with the sound I've heard. OTOH, some of
the historical footage of live performances have been wonderful.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[Scott Dorsey]

brassplyer > wrote:
>On Nov 4, 4:31=A0am,
>(Richard Webb) wrote:
>> > But I couldn't do that by listening to your
>> > YouTube video.
>>
>> WOuld agree with that assessment.
>
>Yet you also miss the point of the exercise, which was only to prove
>the point that yes, a difference can be heard, not "which mic is
>better".

Hell, you can hear a difference between a microphone and that same mike
moved a couple inches away. Just being able to hear a difference between
two samples is not a useful criterion for anything.

>But let's clarify something - you're claiming that under no
>circumstances, at *any* quality level currently available with .mp3 or
>any other typical online audio format would you be able to form any
>impression whatsoever of any element of a recording.

Oh, you can form an impression all right. But will it be a valid one?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

drichard > wrote:
>To add to my previous question, can you recommend any of the
>inexpensive mics as particularly good or bad? I'm very much a part-
>timer, so price matters to me, but I always look to get the best bang
>for my buck. But I don't have the technical expertise to evaluate
>capsules, electronics, or body styles. I have to evaluate using my
>ears, which is sometimes OK, but I'm without a controlled comparison
>environment, so many of my efforts are subjective on a given day. And
>I don't trust evaluations made in a store environment.

Buy some of the old classics. Everyone should have an SM-57, an EV 635A,
and maybe an RE-20. The first two are very cheap, and all three can be
found used. The first two are very touchy about loading and will benefit
from a shunt resistor in a barrel connector if you are using a modern
transformerless preamp.

Buy some of the better dynamic mikes being made today. The EV N/D 408
and 468 mikes are good enough to use in the far field. They aren't very
expensive, and they are remarkably convenient for a lot of things.
They aren't a 441, but they aren't priced like a 441 either.

>For example, I bought a couple of MXL603's a couple of years ago, but
>something about them bothered me. They sounded a little harsh, and I
>sold them. But I have an even more inexpensive pair of MCA SP-1's and
>I think they sound good. Also, I bought a couple of used EV mics
>(RE-10, RE-11's) based on yours and a few others comments, and have
>not been disappointed.

The thing is, the SP-1 and the MXL603 both have capsules which are patterned
after the same old German capsule, but they're made a little differently.
Consistency on both of them isn't so hot, but the SP-1 is being resold by
some people who are demanding the factory make something that sounds good
instead of insanely bright.

>I'm always interested in your opinions, as well as those of the other
>experienced and knowledgeable people around here.

Take a hundred bucks to a good local studio, ask them if they can get
you a good deal on a few hours of spare time that they'd normally have
unbooked. Record yourself on everything they have in the mike locker,
then take it home and listen to it. You may find the mike you like the
best isn't particularly expensive. Then again, you might find it's is.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> If the point were that MXL 990s are really pretty good mics, then you need
> to look at the collected works of a certain Mr. Ty Ford. He has a bunch of
> microphone comparisons posted on the web.

> Interestingly enough, many of Ty's videos
> were done with QuickTime, which in my book is only a little less suspect
> than YouTube. But, since the locals here have not been trashing his videos
> like they seem to be trashing yours, you might want to see what he's doing
> right, other than being a well-respected old timer named Ty Ford. ;-)

I rarely go to Ty's videos when I read his reviews, for reasons which
I've already
expressed here. But when I do, it's to see how he had the mics set up,
so I can
get a sense of what I'm hearing in terms of ambience, not just what's
being recorded.
Also, Ty tends to show the mics off not just in general, but where he
considers them
to be particularly useful or where they do a particularly good job. A
lot of his recordings
are of his own guitars in his home studio, but he has recorded examples
of mics
made in a full blown recording studio, or in a live performance venue.

Also, Ty's text description of the mics is, in general, very good. He
knows what
engineers listen for and describes those characteristics well in words.
I really
don't have to listen to a recording to know what he's talking about. But
then,
his goals when reviewing a microphone are different, I suspect, from yours.

[Arkansan Raider]

Richard Webb wrote:


> No, I don't own an ipod or an Iphone. I find I really don't like the sound, even if top 40 and other mainstream radio
> formats are using the heck out of it. I usually don't
> listen to mainstream music radio either.
>
> Regards,
> Richard


Just for the record, I think you'd be amazed at the sound you'd get from
an iPod using .wav files instead of .mp3 or AAC.

I have an 80gb 5th gen iPod Video, and while the mp3s do sound pretty
bad, the .wavs sound very listenable.

JMHSO

---Jeff

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

On Tue 2037-Nov-03 22:24, brassplyer writes:
(1:3634/1000) wrote to All:

b> On Nov 3, 10:09=A0pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>> That's right! And if you cook it right, industrial waste can taste
>> just as good as raw sewage!

> Must be hyperbole night at RAP

NOt hardly. sOme of us don't listen to anything critically
using mp3. IN fact, some of us, this one included try to
avoid listening to anything except maybe spoken voice only
using mp3 or other lossy formats.

That stuff always sounds like it's run through a flanger to
my ears. IN many cases worse than the old analog cassette.

No, I don't own an ipod or an Iphone. I find I really don't like the sound, even if top 40 and other mainstream radio
formats are using the heck out of it. I usually don't
listen to mainstream music radio either.

Regards,
Richard
--
| 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.

[Arkansan Raider]

Richard Webb wrote:
> On Wed 2037-Nov-04 12:10, Arkansan Raider writes:
>>> No, I don't own an ipod or an Iphone. I find I really don't like the sound,
>>> even if top 40 and other mainstream radio
>>> formats are using the heck out of it. I usually don't
>>> listen to mainstream music radio either.
>
>> Just for the record, I think you'd be amazed at the sound you'd get
>> from an iPod using .wav files instead of .mp3 or AAC.
>
> Maybe, but the user interface on one of them things ain't
> exactly blind man friendly. I"ll stick with a cd player or
> the computer.

Crap. Sorry about that, my friend. I keep forgetting.

>
>> I have an 80gb 5th gen iPod Video, and while the mp3s do sound
>> pretty bad, the .wavs sound very listenable.
>
> Probably so, looked at one briefly and found the ui a pita
> for folks like me.

Roger that.

---Jeff

[brassplyer]

On Nov 4, 7:02*am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> If the point were that MXL 990s are really pretty good mics,


I'm sure Ty's tests are great and I look forward to examining them.
While I suggested that mic and I already know they're decent, the
quality of the MXL 990 wasn't the point at all as far as the debate
I've been engaging in.

The point was one that grew out of some grousing simply because I told
the OP "here's an example of these mics" on YouTube and another site
Vimeo. They carried on as if I had committed some crime against the
audio world by directing the OP to these links. The "quality of
YouTube audio" was really a side issue resulting from this. I was
debunking an assertion that one can't tell *anything* from Youtube
audio and the notion that "it doesn't matter" what mic you use because
YouTube audio is so inherently ****ty. If you can hear differences in
character between mics on YouTube then obviously it *does* matter -
i.e. there's more than enough fidelity potential for one recording to
sound substantially better than another.

[david correia]

In article >,
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

> Take a hundred bucks to a good local studio, ask them if they can get
> you a good deal on a few hours of spare time that they'd normally have
> unbooked. Record yourself on everything they have in the mike locker,
> then take it home and listen to it. You may find the mike you like the
> best isn't particularly expensive. Then again, you might find it's is.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."



I'd add that you bring in your own mic pre if you don't plan on buying
another one. Mics can sound quite different in another pre.

I wonder if Scott has listened to a 414b-uls and an 80's 87 plugged into
a really nice pre.




David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com

[brassplyer]

On Nov 4, 8:58*am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

> >Yet you also miss the point of the exercise, which was only to prove
> >the point that yes, a difference can be heard, not "which mic is
> >better".
>
> Hell, you can hear a difference between a microphone and that same mike
> moved a couple inches away. *Just being able to hear a difference between
> two samples is not a useful criterion for anything.


In this case it serves as proof that the fidelity is good enough to be
able to make such distinctions, when it was previously claimed
otherwise. If you can hear these differences, then to state "it
doesn't matter what mic you use" is clearly not correct.


> >But let's clarify something - you're claiming that under no
> >circumstances, at *any* quality level currently available with .mp3 or
> >any other typical online audio format would you be able to form any
> >impression whatsoever of any element of a recording.
>
> Oh, you can form an impression all right. *But will it be a valid one?


How many examples can you point to where something sounds clean,
clear, well balanced, musical on YouTube or in mp3 form where it
sounds worse in non-streamed/compressed form?

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

On Wed 2037-Nov-04 12:10, Arkansan Raider writes:
>> No, I don't own an ipod or an Iphone. I find I really don't like the sound,
>> even if top 40 and other mainstream radio
>> formats are using the heck out of it. I usually don't
>> listen to mainstream music radio either.

> Just for the record, I think you'd be amazed at the sound you'd get
> from an iPod using .wav files instead of .mp3 or AAC.

Maybe, but the user interface on one of them things ain't
exactly blind man friendly. I"ll stick with a cd player or
the computer.

> I have an 80gb 5th gen iPod Video, and while the mp3s do sound
> pretty bad, the .wavs sound very listenable.

Probably so, looked at one briefly and found the ui a pita
for folks like me.

But, then that was only briefly, and a friend's.

Regards,
Richard
--
| 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.

[Mike Rivers]

brassplyer wrote:

> I was
> debunking an assertion that one can't tell *anything* from Youtube
> audio and the notion that "it doesn't matter" what mic you use because
> YouTube audio is so inherently ****ty.

How about "You can't tell anything about a mic that matters from YouTube
because the audio is so ****ty." Will that do?

> If you can hear differences in
> character between mics on YouTube then obviously it *does* matter -
> i.e. there's more than enough fidelity potential for one recording to
> sound substantially better than another.

But my point is that one didn't sound subtantially better than the other.
Yet you seemed convinced, either because of your personal bias that
a condenser mic is always better on a guitar than a dynamic, or, hopefully,
because of what you heard in your own studio with "full" fidelity that the
MXL 990 was the better mic. The difference was you and I were listening
to different things, so how are we expected to come to the same conclusions?

[brassplyer]

On Nov 4, 6:56*am, Mike Rivers > wrote:
> brassplyer wrote:
> > What you do after Youtube is buy one or a pair and see what they sound
> > like going through your gear.
>
> You could do that before YouTube, too. But a lot of people are hesitant to
> do that. First off, what do you do if you decide you don't care for the mic
> that you bought?
>
> That's not a big deal if you're "stuck" with a $50 mic - it's bound to
> be good
> for something, sometime. But if you bought a $500 mic, found that it didn't
> sound any bettter than the $100 mic you already have, then what?


I'm not quite clear how this follows from the debate we've been having
on this issue, but to make a more expensive mic choice, I would think
that someone with common sense would do some research - certainly easy
enough to do in the internet era. There's a lot of subjectivity - and
a written opinion doesn't really show you what it *sounds* like, but
you should be able to get some idea if a piece of gear is generally
well regarded or universally called a pos.

I suppose you could also see if you can borrow one, or find a studio
that has one and ask to rent some time to try it out. I assume a
typical studio will be happy to take your money to try out a/some mic
(s). Silly for a single $100 mic, possibly worthwhile for one that's
considerably more.

You could also buy used. I suppose there's some gamble as to it going
on the fritz without a warranty, but if you're saving a substantial
amount I imagine you can afford to send it in for factory service if
it ever needs it. And at least with Ebay you've got a certain degree
of assurance that it's at least not going to be DOA.

But I still say it's not accurate to assert that an online example
can't be useful - apparently Royer labs thinks it can be.

http://www.royerlabs.com/royerdemocd1.html

If something sounds decent with better quality lossy audio, I think
it's unlikely it's going to sound worse with better audio.

Ultimately, at some point you have to belly up and buy the thing and
try it and see if everyone who says a given mic gives them good
results is clueless or lying just to jerk you around.



> I know that's true in general, but if I didn't already know it, I couldn't
> say from the YouTube demo that I was hearing *"more wood" or more
> "spectrum."


Well, again my goal in that particular instance wasn't to make it
optimal, it was just a quickie to demonstrate that a -different- sound
could in fact be discerned over YouTube with two very different mics I
happened to have at hand. Certainly with more care I could make a much
better sounding recording that would be more of a showcase for the
mic's capabilities.

[brassplyer]

On Nov 4, 8:32*pm, Mike Rivers > wrote:

> But my point is that one didn't sound subtantially better than the other.


But if you can hear a difference then the potential is there for a
quality difference. In this instance, I wasn't shooting to demonstrate
quality per se, just difference. Here's two mics at the same spot
relative to the guitar which may not be optimal but makes for an
apples/apples comparison. Can you hear a difference? Yes you can so
let's hear no more about "it makes no difference".

I believe an optimally set up recording with one or a couple of those
MXL's would be discernibly superior to one with the dynamic mic as far
as capturing more of the sound of the instrument with better fidelity
and the difference would be apparent over YouTube.

Of course, having someone with real guitar chops in front of the mics
would be helpful.

[brassplyer]

On Nov 4, 8:55*pm, brassplyer > wrote:
> Here's two mics at the same spot
> relative to the guitar which may not be optimal but makes for an
> apples/apples comparison.


Btw, even at that are you saying you don't hear an obvious difference
in which mic captures more of the high freq spectrum in that YouTube
example?

[Anahata]

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:49:31 -0800, brassplyer wrote:

> On Nov 4, 8:58Â*am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>> Hell, you can hear a difference between a microphone and that same mike
>> moved a couple inches away.
>
> In this case it serves as proof that the fidelity is good enough to be
> able to make such distinctions

Fidelity of what? Scott didn't mean on YouTube!

It's just possible that you could put two mics side by side and record
one performance simultaneously through identical recording chains, then
put up two copies of the same video on YouTube with only the soundtrack
being different, and you might be able to make a meaningful comparison.

Anything else is not a useful comparison of mics. With two videos made of
different performances, of different music, in different rooms, by
different engineers, with different amounts of time available to set up,
different mic positions, with different encoding artifacts and bitrates -
sure you can tell they sound different and they might both sound OK, but
it's no basis for deciding whether you should spend $500 on one mic or
$100 on the other, if either the cost or the sound quality matters to you.

Any one of those differences alone is enough to make an evaluation
suspect, and actually nothing will really tell you how useful a mic is to
you for the purpose you want to use it for, except trying it out yourself.

--
Anahata
==//== 01638 720444
http://www.treewind.co.uk ==//== http://www.myspace.com/maryanahata

[brassplyer]

On Nov 4, 3:04*pm,
(Richard Webb) wrote:

> That stuff always sounds like it's run through a flanger to
> my ears. *


Are you saying the demo material on this page sounds like it's being
run through a flanger?

http://www.royerlabs.com/royerdemocd1.html

[Mike Rivers]

brassplyer wrote:

> I'm not quite clear how this follows from the debate we've been having
> on this issue,

Who says an on-line debate has to follow a straight path???

> but to make a more expensive mic choice, I would think
> that someone with common sense would do some research - certainly easy
> enough to do in the internet era.

To make ANY mic choice, I would think that anyone with common
sense would do research other than on the Internet. And that's the
point I've been trying to make to you. If you depend on verbal descriptions
from people on the Internet, it's really hard to know whether the person
whose description you're reading really knows any more than you do
about the subject. And if you depend on an audio sample that you get
over the Internet, there are many reasons, only one of which is the
data-reduced format that it's likely to be in, why it won't clearly
illustrate
what might matter to you about choosing a mic.

A person with common sense, when choosing a mic, will do one of two
things (or some reasonable variation of them). Either he'll buy a common,
well-known "universal" mic within his budget, or he'll do whatever it takes
to get his hands and voice or instrument on a real one and put it
through its
paces. But a fact of life is that not everyone who goes to the Internet for
information has good common sense.

> I suppose you could also see if you can borrow one, or find a studio
> that has one and ask to rent some time to try it out. I assume a
> typical studio will be happy to take your money to try out a/some mic
> (s). Silly for a single $100 mic, possibly worthwhile for one that's
> considerably more.

Exactly - which is why it makes a certain degree of sense, if you have
$100 to spend on a mic, to buy a common one, not one that's only known
to "insiders," and learn what you can do with it. It may not be the optimum
mic for your application at your price point, but it won't be horrible
either.
But if you want to find something really special, the only way to do that
is to get the real thing, not a low resolution recording made by someone
with unknown qualifications or an unknown setup - or even a well
qualified presenter with a setup significantly different from yours.

> You could also buy used. I suppose there's some gamble as to it going
> on the fritz without a warranty, but if you're saving a substantial
> amount

Actually, microphones tend to keep their value pretty well, particularly
the low priced and high priced ones. The bargains in used mics tend to
be in the $250-500 range, like an EV RE-20 or Sennheiser MD-441. They're
really good standbys, but being dynamic mics, aren't all that popular
with the hip young condenser crowd. You don't see them for sale all
that often, but when you do, they're usually a pretty decent bargain
compared to the new price. But mics like the MXL 990 tend to sell for
essentially what the original owner paid for them. The price spread
is because those mics are often sold as part of a bundle so some people
paid $100 for one, others paid $100 for one together with a 991.

> But I still say it's not accurate to assert that an online example
> can't be useful - apparently Royer labs thinks it can be.

Royer will happily send you a CD if you really want to hear what
their mics sound like.

> If something sounds decent with better quality lossy audio, I think
> it's unlikely it's going to sound worse with better audio.

Agreed. But to a novice, even though he can detect a difference,
he may not know which one is really better for him. And only a
novice would depend on an on-line sample to choose a mic, because
he doesn't know any other way.

> Ultimately, at some point you have to belly up and buy the thing and
> try it and see if everyone who says a given mic gives them good
> results is clueless or lying just to jerk you around.

No, ultimately you need to buy something and start using it. Learn
what's good about it and what's not so good, and use it appropriately.

[David Aguilera[_2_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> brassplyer wrote:
>
>> What you do after Youtube is buy one or a pair and see what they sound
>> like going through your gear.
>
> You could do that before YouTube, too. But a lot of people are hesitant to
> do that. First off, what do you do if you decide you don't care for the mic
> that you bought? Some stores won't allow you to return microphones,
> claiming
> "health reasons" so you're either stuck with your purchase or you have to
> sell the mic yourself, usually at some loss. And even if you buy from a
> dealer
> who does take returns, I'm amazed at the number of people who don't feel
> comfortable about returning something that doesn't work for them. It's too
> much trouble to contact the dealer, get a return authorization, pack it up,
> pay for shipping, etc.
>
> That's not a big deal if you're "stuck" with a $50 mic - it's bound to
> be good
> for something, sometime. But if you bought a $500 mic, found that it didn't
> sound any bettter than the $100 mic you already have, then what?
>
> Also, unless it's a mechanical or electrical issue (like not having phantom
> power or the wrong kind of connector), it's not really a matter of how the
> mic will work with your GEAR, but more significantly, for your PROJECTS.
> You might get a mic that works really well with a kick drum, but if you
> need to record vocals or acoustic guitars, it could be entirely wrong.
> There
> are plenty of mics that I wouldn't mind using on anything (on the cheap,
> an SM57 is one) but if I was looking for the perfect mic for MY voice,
> and on
> a particular song, I'd want to be able to do a shootout that couldn't be
> done on YouTube.
>
> > Personally, I've bought all but maybe one mic I've had sight unseen
>
> Me, too, but then I've only bought mics that have a good reputation and
> which I know I've heard before - on real records and CDs, or on stage. And
> I have some reason for buying that particular microphone.
>
>> However, how the YouTube demo could be useful is if you hear that
>> you're not getting it to sound at least as good as the guy on YouTube,
>> you investigate why not.
>
> That's an entirely different thing. You may learn something about how to
> make better recordings, and that's never a bad thing. But if that were the
> goal, rather than having a seascape to watch while listening ot the mics,
> it would be helpful if the video showed where the mics were placed, and
> how the sound changes when they're moved around. That way, even if
> the differences were pretty subtle and seemed insignificant on their own,
> you could try the same experiments with your own system and hear the
> differences much more clearly.
>
>> The proof is that you've already said you could hear a difference. The
>> objective wasn't to reach a conclusion as to which is "better", it was
>> to demonstrate yes, you can discern a difference, no all mics don't
>> sound alike on YouTube.
>
> And again, I ask - why is this important?
>
>> Personally, there's no way I'd choose the dynamic over the MXL -
>> particularly if the guitar was in the spotlight because I know what
>> the ultimate potential is - the condenser captures far more of the
>> spectrum of the guitar's sound. I can hear more of "the wood". There's
>> a sheen that's apparent with the condenser that's simply absent from
>> the dynamic. I don't think it's possible that you don't already know
>> this.
>
> I know that's true in general, but if I didn't already know it, I couldn't
> say from the YouTube demo that I was hearing "more wood" or more
> "spectrum."

I have to say that the '57 and the MXL990 choice matters only because
what it sounds like in the mix is the important aspect of the question.
The fact that they differ does not automatically mean that one is
better than the other.

I have a MXL990 and several SM57's and although neither mic is my "go
to" acoustic guitar mic, there are situations in which I would use the
'57.

I is unlikely I would ever use a 990--even in a solo acoustic deal where
I wanted to capture the bass register. My first impulse when mixing an
acoustic guitar mic'd by it is to attenuate bass frequencies to clear up
the mix (low shelf 60, parametric 100 and 200.) . I've tried it
onfingerstyle and strumming; classical and steel string.

It could just boil down to taste, but my general opinion (in spite of
the fact that I agree that it catches more detail due to it's capsule
build) is I would never mic an acoustic guitar with it.

I do think it's alright for picked electric guitar during held down
arpeggios (not lead style).

What instrument(s) does the poster want to record though? Have we
established that yet?

Going and laying down for studio off hours is an excellent idea. Find
out what they have in their mic lockers first.

David

[Scott Dorsey]

Richard Webb > wrote:
>
>YOu're missing the point that MIke Rivers and others of us
>here are trying to make to you, obviously. I might when
>I've access watch a youtube video that will help me learn
>something I wish to understand, such as a construction
>technique or other instructional material, but I"m not oging to bother with your mic shootout which isn't a mic shootout
>that would have any meaning for me.

Translation: you really can't get any notion of how a mike sounds from
youtube. You _can_ get a good idea of what it looks like, but who cares
what a mike looks like?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

On Thu 2037-Nov-05 05:06, brassplyer writes:
>> That stuff always sounds like it's run through a flanger to
> my ears.

> Are you saying the demo material on this page sounds like it's being
> run through a flanger?

NO fool, I'm saying I didn't bother to listen to it because
it isn't a tool I"m going to use to evaluate the sound of
any microphone, for any purpose, at any time. I"m also not
going to use material recorded on a cassette tape.

YOu're missing the point that MIke Rivers and others of us
here are trying to make to you, obviously. I might when
I've access watch a youtube video that will help me learn
something I wish to understand, such as a construction
technique or other instructional material, but I"m not oging to bother with your mic shootout which isn't a mic shootout
that would have any meaning for me.

I was using a different access portal to usenet then, but
I"m one of the folks with whom you had the discussion a few
months ago on the mix of one of your favorites on the TV
which you'd also heard from youtube iirc. Iirc in that one
you bumped figurative heads with some professionals in the
business too.

AFter the previous thread you and I both participated in and this one, I think I can say only one thing safely.

<plunk>


Richard
--
| 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.

[Mike Rivers]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Translation: you really can't get any notion of how a mike sounds from
> youtube. You _can_ get a good idea of what it looks like, but who cares
> what a mike looks like?

Oh, a lot of people care what a mic looks like. For instance the SM58 or
U87
look like vocal mics, one being for stage use, the other for studio use. <g>

[brassplyer]

On Nov 5, 4:39*pm,
(Richard Webb) wrote:
> On Thu 2037-Nov-05 05:06, brassplyer writes:
>
> >> That stuff always sounds like it's run through a flanger to
> > my ears.
> > Are you saying the demo material on this page sounds like it's being
> > run through a flanger?
>
> NO fool, I'm saying I didn't bother to listen to it because
> it isn't a tool I"m going to use to evaluate the sound of
> any microphone,


You made a statement - "it always sounds like it's run through a
flanger". To which I say - horsecrap. The audio on that Royer site
sounds nothing of the sort.


> I"m not oging to bother with your mic shootout which isn't a mic shootout
> that would have any meaning for me.


It wasn't a mic shootout in the sense of trying to display the quality
of a mic, it was simply to demonstrate a point.


> I was using a different access portal to usenet then, but
> I"m one of the folks with whom you had the discussion a few
> months ago on the mix of one of your favorites on the TV
> which you'd also heard from youtube iirc. *


It wasn't that she was "one of my favorites" but an example of
something I've noticed repeatedly that I find aggravating. I'd
originally heard it on Hi-Fi speakers hooked up to the VCR when I
first saw the live performance. Sounded like a bad mix there and
sounded like a bad mix for the exact same reasons when I saw it again
on YouTube. Much of the static I heard on that one was political -
"how dare anyone question the work of our brothers in arms??" Some
offered some viable explanations - i.e. problems with the overall
organizational environment that get in the way of quality production.
Some tried to claim there was nothing wrong with the mix, which
demonstrated they were either deaf, devoid of musical sensibilities or
more interested in defending their "bros" than looking at it
objectively.


> Iirc in that one
> you bumped figurative heads with some professionals in the
> business too.


Somewhat diminishes your "professional" gravitas when you engage in
name-calling and in hyperbole - i.e. "all mp3's sound like they're run
through a flanger" - nothing like that evident in those Royer
demos.

[brassplyer]

On Nov 5, 7:46*am, Mike Rivers > wrote:

> Agreed. But to a novice, even though he can detect a difference,
> he may not know which one is really better for him.


They might also not find universal consensus among pros as to which is
better suited.

[Mike Rivers]

brassplyer wrote:
> On Nov 5, 7:46 am, Mike Rivers > wrote:
>> Agreed. But to a novice, even though he can detect a difference,
>> he may not know which one is really better for him.

> They might also not find universal consensus among pros as to which is
> better suited.

And that's exactly my point. It's hard enough for a couple of people to
agree
which is the best mic with nothing in the way but the preamp and the studio
monitors. Put a data reduction system in the path and it makes the decision
even harder.

[Scott Dorsey]

brassplyer > wrote:
>On Nov 5, 7:46=A0am, Mike Rivers > wrote:
>
>> Agreed. But to a novice, even though he can detect a difference,
>> he may not know which one is really better for him.
>
>They might also not find universal consensus among pros as to which is
>better suited.

Who cares about that?

You can't have consensus about anything like that, because every
situation is different and every room is different.

Even nasty-sounding products are sometimes useful. But you need to know
in advance precisely what kind of nastiness it has.
--scott

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

[brassplyer]

On Nov 5, 7:43*pm, Mike Rivers > wrote:
> brassplyer wrote:
> > On Nov 5, 7:46 am, Mike Rivers > wrote:
> >> Agreed. But to a novice, even though he can detect a difference,
> >> he may not know which one is really better for him.
> > They might also not find universal consensus among pros as to which is
> > better suited.
>
> And that's exactly my point. It's hard enough for a couple of people to
> agree
> which is the best mic with nothing in the way but the preamp and the studio
> monitors. Put a data reduction system in the path and it makes the decision
> even harder.


Let's pause here and reflect on what set you off in the first place. I
posted a couple of video links to examples of mics I suggested for the
OP's consideration.

He stated, I believe a budget of $200 - $250 for one or more mics. Not
for recording the LSO, but for an initial foray into home recording.

I got the 990's on sale for I believe about $80 - $90 for the pair,
the C2's for about $60 for the pair. So, he could pick up two 990's
AND two C2's - four mics for under $200 and almost assuredly get most
or all of his money back if he decided to Ebay them. If he threw them
out he'd out less than $200 - that's drinks, chow and a few lap
dances for a couple of guys at the local gentleman's club.

Your original kvetching -

"Is this the new criterion for deciding if a mic works well?"

Which was not stated or implied by the act of offering the links, but
given this specific scenario, the examples are more than adequate to
demonstrate - and not misleadingly - that the mics are worthy of
consideration. Along with that, he has my opinion that the mics have
the potential for great results and a number of favorable reviews
online that say the same thing. Personally, I bought them having never
heard them demonstrated, I was curious to see what such inexpensive
mics sounded like. Fact is they sound fine.


molehill --------------> MOUNTAIN

[Richard Crowley]

"brassplyer" wrote...
> You made a statement - "it always sounds like it's run through a
> flanger". To which I say - horsecrap. The audio on that Royer site
> sounds nothing of the sort.

YOUR notion of what OTHER people can or cannot hear is
not really relevant, is it?

> It wasn't a mic shootout in the sense of trying to display the
> quality of a mic, it was simply to demonstrate a point.

If the point was that you can sometimes hear the difference
between different microphones, then the point is so trivial
and nearly useless as to be not worth the effort. It has no
significant value in selecting or even comparing mics.

> It wasn't that she was "one of my favorites" but an example of
> something I've noticed repeatedly that I find aggravating. I'd
> originally heard it on Hi-Fi speakers hooked up to the VCR when I
> first saw the live performance. Sounded like a bad mix there and
> sounded like a bad mix for the exact same reasons when I saw it again
> on YouTube.

You place a great deal more faith in what you can hear on
YouTube than almost anyone else here. And many (most?)
of the people here have produced things that have ended up
on YouTube. They know what it sounded like BEFORE it
went through the destructive YouTube process. Perhaps that
accounts for our low esteem of what comes back out.

[Scott Dorsey]

Richard Crowley > wrote:
>
>You place a great deal more faith in what you can hear on
>YouTube than almost anyone else here. And many (most?)
>of the people here have produced things that have ended up
>on YouTube. They know what it sounded like BEFORE it
>went through the destructive YouTube process. Perhaps that
>accounts for our low esteem of what comes back out.

Well, I have to admit that of the stuff I have produced that ended up
on Youtube, the sound wasn't mangled half as badly as the picture.

A bunch of stuff I shot at 24 fps, then telecined to 30 fps video
with the pulldown, and then the 30 fps video put on youtube. Whatever
encoding youtube did, it did NOT deal well with the pulldown artifacts
and made them way worse.
--scott

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

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

On Thu 2037-Nov-05 16:47, Mike Rivers writes:
>> Translation: you really can't get any notion of how a mike sounds from
>> youtube. You _can_ get a good idea of what it looks like, but who cares
>> what a mike looks like?

> Oh, a lot of people care what a mic looks like. For instance the
> SM58 or U87
> look like vocal mics, one being for stage use, the other for studio
> use. <g>

Agreed, but that's not what this guy keeps telling us.

I might be able to tell whether it's a great song or not,
even through the artifacts, because a great song is going to transcend all that anyway, but not whether it's a good
recording of a great song.


Regards,
Richard
--
| 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.

[Mike Rivers]

brassplyer wrote:

> He stated, I believe a budget of $200 - $250 for one or more mics. Not
> for recording the LSO, but for an initial foray into home recording.

> I got the 990's on sale for I believe about $80 - $90 for the pair,
> the C2's for about $60 for the pair. So, he could pick up two 990's
> AND two C2's - four mics for under $200 and almost assuredly get most
> or all of his money back if he decided to Ebay them.

I have no issue with your recommendation of those mics for that budget,
given no further details. For what most people do at home, you can get
something useful from one or the other.

My comments were based on the fact that rather than simply saying: "Try
these mics. They're pretty decent for the price and they suit your budget."
you suggested that he could audition the mics from a YouTube video.
That, to me, seemed like it would be more confusing, or rather, less
positive a recommendation, than simply pointing him to the mics (by name)
and telling him to not worry about whether there might be another mic
somewhere that's better (for what? you don't know).

> "Is this the new criterion for deciding if a mic works well?"
>
> Which was not stated or implied by the act of offering the links, but
> given this specific scenario, the examples are more than adequate to
> demonstrate - and not misleadingly - that the mics are worthy of
> consideration.

There are few mics that wouldn't meet the criteria: "worthy of consideration
for making an adequate YouTube recording."

> Along with that, he has my opinion that the mics have
> the potential for great results and a number of favorable reviews
> online that say the same thing.

And that's the useful part of your attempt to steer him to buying a
couple of
inexpensive mics and start working with them. I wouldn't have said anything
other than perhaps to add an SM57 to the list if for no other reason
than to
have a mic that's very common. My issue was with your attempt to show him
what a mic could sound like via YouTube. It's not likely to lead him in
the wrong
direction - in that price range, there's hardly a wrong direction - but
it might
leave him agonizing over a decision for weeks when he could be recording and
learning how the process, and the microphone, works.

[Ty Ford]

On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 11:40:39 -0500, David Aguilera wrote
(in article >):

> it catches more detail due to it's capsule build

um, what do you mean?

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 Tue, 3 Nov 2009 18:33:04 -0500, matty b. wrote
(in article
>):

> Then again I never liked micing the 12th fret with any mic in certain rooms
> anyways.

depends on the guitar...and mic...and preamp...and room...and player.

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 Wed, 4 Nov 2009 07:02:14 -0500, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> If the point were that MXL 990s are really pretty good mics, then you need to

> look at the collected works of a certain Mr. Ty Ford. He has a bunch of
> microphone comparisons posted on the web. "Ty Ford Microphone test" got me
> immediate pay dirt on Google. Interestingly enough, many of Ty's videos were

> done with QuickTime, which in my book is only a little less suspect than
> YouTube. But, since the locals here have not been trashing his videos like
> they seem to be trashing yours, you might want to see what he's doing right,
> other than being a well-respected old timer named Ty Ford. ;-)

Huh? sorry I left the room to pee and got lost.

Thanks Arny. I've heard a lot of Marshalls that were OK for the price, but I
don't recall hearing the 990. They all pretty much had that nasty little edge
on 'em that steers me away. OK if you are recording something that already
has a nasty little edge on it, but not what I'd want on a regular basis.

And if the mic is important, I post 16- or 24-bit files on my server....cause
YouTube, as much as it has been improved, still sucks for demanding
listening.

If you have loads of free
time.....http://idisk.mac.com/tyreeford-Public?view=web

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 Tue, 3 Nov 2009 18:33:04 -0500, matty b. wrote
> (in article
> >):
>
> > Then again I never liked micing the 12th fret with any mic in certain rooms
> > anyways.
>
> depends on the guitar...and mic...and preamp...and room...and player.

It does, indeed. That said, live, that position restricts player
movement a lot. A little sideways shift that puts the mic too far from
the body skinnies out the sound. A little sideways shift the other
direction puts the mic too near the soundhole.

Working acoustically over the last couple of years I have come to place
the mic for my guitar, and for Shaidri's, too, below the lower bout,
aimed about 45 degress upward, and about the same into the face of the
instrument. Essentially the mic is off to our right and is looking up at
an angle across the top of the guitar, focused on the bridge. This seems
to give a rich body sound yet also get the sizzle from the strings.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar
http://www.armadillomusicproductions.com/CarryMeHome.htm
http://hankalrich.com/

[Ty Ford]

On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 20:48:51 -0500, hank alrich wrote
(in article >):

> Ty Ford > wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 18:33:04 -0500, matty b. wrote
>> (in article
>> >):
>>
>>> Then again I never liked micing the 12th fret with any mic in certain rooms
>>> anyways.
>>
>> depends on the guitar...and mic...and preamp...and room...and player.
>
> It does, indeed. That said, live, that position restricts player
> movement a lot. A little sideways shift that puts the mic too far from
> the body skinnies out the sound. A little sideways shift the other
> direction puts the mic too near the soundhole.
>
> Working acoustically over the last couple of years I have come to place
> the mic for my guitar, and for Shaidri's, too, below the lower bout,
> aimed about 45 degress upward, and about the same into the face of the
> instrument. Essentially the mic is off to our right and is looking up at
> an angle across the top of the guitar, focused on the bridge. This seems
> to give a rich body sound yet also get the sizzle from the strings.

Yes, hard to hold that position when playing live, but if you're standing and
playing live AnYthing is more difficult. I'm remembering the freedom with
which Michael Hedges moved around the stage with his acoustic guitars. He
seemed to have figured out how to make pickups sound great,

I know that spot and have used it on a few guitars, but my martin sounds
pretty crappy from back there. As always, ymmv.

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

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

"Ty Ford" > wrote in message
al.NET...
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 20:48:51 -0500, hank alrich wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> Ty Ford > wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 18:33:04 -0500, matty b. wrote
>>> (in article
>>> >):
>>>
>>>> Then again I never liked micing the 12th fret with any mic in certain
>>>> rooms
>>>> anyways.
>>>
>>> depends on the guitar...and mic...and preamp...and room...and player.
>>
>> It does, indeed. That said, live, that position restricts player
>> movement a lot. A little sideways shift that puts the mic too far from
>> the body skinnies out the sound. A little sideways shift the other
>> direction puts the mic too near the soundhole.
>>
>> Working acoustically over the last couple of years I have come to place
>> the mic for my guitar, and for Shaidri's, too, below the lower bout,
>> aimed about 45 degress upward, and about the same into the face of the
>> instrument. Essentially the mic is off to our right and is looking up at
>> an angle across the top of the guitar, focused on the bridge. This seems
>> to give a rich body sound yet also get the sizzle from the strings.
>
> Yes, hard to hold that position when playing live, but if you're standing
> and
> playing live AnYthing is more difficult. I'm remembering the freedom with
> which Michael Hedges moved around the stage with his acoustic guitars. He
> seemed to have figured out how to make pickups sound great,
>
My mentor worked as MH tour sound company for several national tours and I
can put you in touch with the man who designed and built his pick-ups(my old
worn out brain seems to think his name was chris grenier(sp?) )
as well as my friend Lenny who was his(Hedge's) full time engineer, Lenny
now is head engineer at a casino in central ny
George

[Ty Ford]

On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 07:36:32 -0500, George's Pro Sound Co. wrote
(in article >):
..
>>
>> Yes, hard to hold that position when playing live, but if you're standing
>> and
>> playing live AnYthing is more difficult. I'm remembering the freedom with
>> which Michael Hedges moved around the stage with his acoustic guitars. He
>> seemed to have figured out how to make pickups sound great,
>>
> My mentor worked as MH tour sound company for several national tours and I
> can put you in touch with the man who designed and built his pick-ups(my old
> worn out brain seems to think his name was chris grenier(sp?) )
> as well as my friend Lenny who was his(Hedge's) full time engineer, Lenny
> now is head engineer at a casino in central ny
> George


George,

Might be worth it even as a "How'd they do that?'" piece.

Thanks,

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