TLM103 vs R-121 for stereo

[Brandon]

I know this is somewhat apples to oranges here. I've got one of each
mic. I'm looking to buy another one to use primarily as drum
overheads and a general stereo set. The recent price increase of the
103 makes these mics closer in the price range than they used to be.
I do have a matched set of sound room oktavas. I don't like them much
for overheads as I don't feel I'm getting the toms as much as I would
like. I think I'm gonig for a "this is the drum kit" sound.?

My drum room is going to be a good size. My guess is 20'x30' with a
slopping ceiling that goes from say 8' to 15'. It's a house, I
haven't moved in yet, so I don't have the specifics, but by my home
studio standards, the room is "huge". ;-)

So, what kinds of things can I expect from an X/Y, ORTF, spaced set of
tlm103s vs. a blumlein set of R-121s? I've never heard a blumlein set
before, so I don't know what to expect.

I have a Langevin DVC, so I was thinking that I would be able to give
the R-121s a bit of rise in the 8kHz or 12kHz range to make up for
their natural roll off. LIkewise, I can adjust the tlm103 at those
frequencies too.

Any suggestions? Recommendations?

[EganMedia]

R121 R121 R121 R121 R121 R121 R121 R121 R121 R121 R121 R121 R121 R121 R121 R121
R121 R121 R121 R121 R121 R121 R121 R121 R121 R121 R121 R121 R121 R121 R121 R121
R121 R121 R121

Just my R121cents worth,


Joe Egan
EMP
Colchester, VT
www.eganmedia.com

[Chris Stevens]

If you have a choice between the two, I would go with the Royers for
overheads. Just be prepared to do some eq'ing if you want that bright pop
sheen. The royers deliver beautifully in that dept when eq'd. And most
ribbons eq very well. I run my royers through an nti pre-q 3 with airband
engaged, which seems to provide enough sheen.

Christopher Stevens
producer/engineer
cs productions, inc.
http://www.christopherstevens.com
http://www.fabmusic.com
"Brandon" > wrote in message
om...
> I know this is somewhat apples to oranges here. I've got one of each
> mic. I'm looking to buy another one to use primarily as drum
> overheads and a general stereo set. The recent price increase of the
> 103 makes these mics closer in the price range than they used to be.
> I do have a matched set of sound room oktavas. I don't like them much
> for overheads as I don't feel I'm getting the toms as much as I would
> like. I think I'm gonig for a "this is the drum kit" sound.?
>
> My drum room is going to be a good size. My guess is 20'x30' with a
> slopping ceiling that goes from say 8' to 15'. It's a house, I
> haven't moved in yet, so I don't have the specifics, but by my home
> studio standards, the room is "huge". ;-)
>
> So, what kinds of things can I expect from an X/Y, ORTF, spaced set of
> tlm103s vs. a blumlein set of R-121s? I've never heard a blumlein set
> before, so I don't know what to expect.
>
> I have a Langevin DVC, so I was thinking that I would be able to give
> the R-121s a bit of rise in the 8kHz or 12kHz range to make up for
> their natural roll off. LIkewise, I can adjust the tlm103 at those
> frequencies too.
>
> Any suggestions? Recommendations?

[Stephen Boyke]

in article , Brandon at
wrote on 11/13/03 4:06 PM:

> I know this is somewhat apples to oranges here. I've got one of each
> mic. I'm looking to buy another one to use primarily as drum
> overheads and a general stereo set. The recent price increase of the
> 103 makes these mics closer in the price range than they used to be.
> I do have a matched set of sound room oktavas. I don't like them much
> for overheads as I don't feel I'm getting the toms as much as I would
> like. I think I'm gonig for a "this is the drum kit" sound.?
>
> My drum room is going to be a good size. My guess is 20'x30' with a
> slopping ceiling that goes from say 8' to 15'. It's a house, I
> haven't moved in yet, so I don't have the specifics, but by my home
> studio standards, the room is "huge". ;-)
>
> So, what kinds of things can I expect from an X/Y, ORTF, spaced set of
> tlm103s vs. a blumlein set of R-121s? I've never heard a blumlein set
> before, so I don't know what to expect.
>
> I have a Langevin DVC, so I was thinking that I would be able to give
> the R-121s a bit of rise in the 8kHz or 12kHz range to make up for
> their natural roll off. LIkewise, I can adjust the tlm103 at those
> frequencies too.
>
> Any suggestions? Recommendations?


Why limit your choices to the 103 and 121? If you're gonna spend nearly
a grand per mic, consider the Gefell M930. It may do exactly what you want,
and add more versatility to your mic closet.
--
Stephen T. Boyke

[Geoff Wood]

"Brandon" > wrote in message
om...
> I know this is somewhat apples to oranges here. I've got one of each
> mic. I'm looking to buy another one to use primarily as drum
> overheads and a general stereo set. The recent price increase of the
> 103 makes these mics closer in the price range than they used to be.


Just guessing here, but I would expect the 103s to be a bit strident on
cymbals ?

geoff

[Justin Ulysses Morse]

I've got a pair of Royer 121s that get used a hell of a lot more than
my pair of Neumann U89s, which aren't too dissimilar to the TLM103 I
suppose. If I had to give up one of these four mics, I would hand over
one of the U89s without hesitation. And I think the 121 has no real
shortage of treble. Sometimes old beat-up ribbon mics tend to sound a
bit rolled-off in the highs, and I suspect that can be due to ribbon
stretching and/or ferrous dust stuck in the magnet gap, as much as any
roll-off inherent in the design. On top of that, the 121 is magical in
a few ways that set it apart from other ribbons I've used, including
the B&O it was modelled after. In short, buy another 121 and don't
assume you'll need that EQ on the DVC.

ulysses


In article >, Brandon
> wrote:

> I know this is somewhat apples to oranges here. I've got one of each
> mic. I'm looking to buy another one to use primarily as drum
> overheads and a general stereo set. The recent price increase of the
> 103 makes these mics closer in the price range than they used to be.
> I do have a matched set of sound room oktavas. I don't like them much
> for overheads as I don't feel I'm getting the toms as much as I would
> like. I think I'm gonig for a "this is the drum kit" sound.?
>
> My drum room is going to be a good size. My guess is 20'x30' with a
> slopping ceiling that goes from say 8' to 15'. It's a house, I
> haven't moved in yet, so I don't have the specifics, but by my home
> studio standards, the room is "huge". ;-)
>
> So, what kinds of things can I expect from an X/Y, ORTF, spaced set of
> tlm103s vs. a blumlein set of R-121s? I've never heard a blumlein set
> before, so I don't know what to expect.
>
> I have a Langevin DVC, so I was thinking that I would be able to give
> the R-121s a bit of rise in the 8kHz or 12kHz range to make up for
> their natural roll off. LIkewise, I can adjust the tlm103 at those
> frequencies too.
>
> Any suggestions? Recommendations?

[Fletcher]

Stephen Boyke wrote:

> in article , Brandon at
> wrote on 11/13/03 4:06 PM:
>
> > I know this is somewhat apples to oranges here. I've got one of each
> > mic. I'm looking to buy another one to use primarily as drum
> > overheads and a general stereo set.

<snip happens>

> Why limit your choices to the 103 and 121? If you're gonna spend nearly
> a grand per mic, consider the Gefell M930. It may do exactly what you want,
> and add more versatility to your mic closet.
> --
> Stephen T. Boyke



The M-930's are really fantastic... but the brother was talking about pairing a
mic to one that already exists in his arsenal... roughly a $1k expense rather
than a $2k expense... in which case I'll have to go with the crowd on the 121
recommendation...
--
Fletcher
Mercenary Audio
TEL: 508-543-0069
FAX: 508-543-9670
http://www.mercenary.com
"this is not a problem"

[Mikey]

Remember, you can turn the 121's around & get the backside brightness,
which is almost like getting 2 mics for 1. However, I really think the
121s will be the better "OH/cymbal closer-in" mics, while I think the
103s will surprise on a more "roomy/distant" sound. I love the 103
midrange scoop for taming a less-than-optimal room. Is there any
reason you aren't considering better SDCs?

Mikey
Nova Music Productions

(Brandon) wrote in message >...
> I know this is somewhat apples to oranges here. I've got one of each
> mic. I'm looking to buy another one to use primarily as drum
> overheads and a general stereo set. The recent price increase of the
> 103 makes these mics closer in the price range than they used to be.
> I do have a matched set of sound room oktavas. I don't like them much
> for overheads as I don't feel I'm getting the toms as much as I would
> like. I think I'm gonig for a "this is the drum kit" sound.?
>
> My drum room is going to be a good size. My guess is 20'x30' with a
> slopping ceiling that goes from say 8' to 15'. It's a house, I
> haven't moved in yet, so I don't have the specifics, but by my home
> studio standards, the room is "huge". ;-)
>
> So, what kinds of things can I expect from an X/Y, ORTF, spaced set of
> tlm103s vs. a blumlein set of R-121s? I've never heard a blumlein set
> before, so I don't know what to expect.
>
> I have a Langevin DVC, so I was thinking that I would be able to give
> the R-121s a bit of rise in the 8kHz or 12kHz range to make up for
> their natural roll off. LIkewise, I can adjust the tlm103 at those
> frequencies too.
>
> Any suggestions? Recommendations?

[Garthrr]

In article <0ZWsb.144706$ao4.462764@attbi_s51>, "Chris Stevens"
> writes:

>If you have a choice between the two, I would go with the Royers for
>overheads. Just be prepared to do some eq'ing if you want that bright pop
>sheen. The royers deliver beautifully in that dept when eq'd. And most
>ribbons eq very well. I run my royers through an nti pre-q 3 with airband
>engaged, which seems to provide enough sheen.

You can also turn the R 121 around so that the backside is toward the kit. It
is significantly brighter when used this way. I'm assuming that being a few
feet from the cymbals the mic would not be in any danger of being harmed from
the SPL of the cymbals although the mic is more vunerable to damage when used
this way.

Garth~


"I think the fact that music can come up a wire is a miracle."
Ed Cherney

[RL,nyc]

(Brandon) wrote in message >...
> Any suggestions? Recommendations?

Everybody is saying it: Royer Royer Royer. No joke... they are great
mics. Right now I only have one. I use it on the kick drum when doing
drums, and it is so good there that I cannot move it anywhere else, so
I am contemplating getting 2 more for overheads. And I do use a
TLM103 as a room mic sometimes and it does a pretty good job there,
bringing that presence bump it has to the distance I have it away from
the kit. Myself, I HATE that top end that everyone else loves which
gets harsh and strident in the digital realm.

Used to be with tape that the tape lost all the high end right away
and you had to favor bright mics and eq to replace it, knowing that
you were going to lose more when you mastered to vinyl on the lathe.
Now in the digital era, you don't lose any top... in fact, because the
wavelenghts are shorter, the resolution on the top tends to get very
brittle. I have been fighting with the mastering labs to attenuate
that f**ing "Sheen" that they think has to be on everything, and am
happy when I can get them to make a record sound dull, like an old
vinyl record. Records only sound duller till the ears get used to a
certain soundscape, which takes about 40 seconds, and only if they
have been subjected to something brighter immediately before. Since
most of the "competing" "product" out there sounds like crap a day
later, I don't care one whit. After all, I want to still be able to
listen to my records in 5 and 20 years. I don't want to love them
this week and not be able to stand them a week later cause they
produce ear fatigue.

Back to the topic on hand...Ribbons have an uncanny way of sustaining
a beautiful top end even into the digital crap era. For that reason
alone, one should get used to understanding that there is PLENTY of
top end in a Royer 121. My favorite mic hands down. but whatever you
do, best luck.

rl, nyc

[Justin Ulysses Morse]

Garthrr > wrote:


> You can also turn the R 121 around so that the backside is toward the kit. It
> is significantly brighter when used this way. I'm assuming that being a few
> feet from the cymbals the mic would not be in any danger of being harmed from
> the SPL of the cymbals although the mic is more vunerable to damage when used
> this way.

Where did you get that? You really think the SPL coming off of some
cymbals is going to damage a microphone?

ulysses

[Ty Ford]

In Article >, Justin Ulysses Morse
> wrote:
>I've got a pair of Royer 121s that get used a hell of a lot more than
>my pair of Neumann U89s, which aren't too dissimilar to the TLM103 I
>suppose. If I had to give up one of these four mics, I would hand over
>one of the U89s without hesitation. And I think the 121 has no real
>shortage of treble. Sometimes old beat-up ribbon mics tend to sound a
>bit rolled-off in the highs, and I suspect that can be due to ribbon
>stretching and/or ferrous dust stuck in the magnet gap, as much as any
>roll-off inherent in the design. On top of that, the 121 is magical in
>a few ways that set it apart from other ribbons I've used, including
>the B&O it was modelled after. In short, buy another 121 and don't
>assume you'll need that EQ on the DVC.
>
>ulysses

U,

Even new ribbons don't have anywhere near the HF respopnse of a condenser.
Sorry, I didn't hear the magic in the 121 or 122. They just sounded like
ribbon mics to me. The 122 was more sensitive due to the extra circuitry,
but that's not what I'd call magic.

Ribbons do work well in smoothing the nasty edges off of sources, but that's
due in great part to the rolled off top end, relative to condensers.

I have a U 89 and two TLM 013s. The TLM 103s sound very much alike. They
sound NOTHING like my U 89.

Regards,

Ty Ford

**Until the worm goes away, I have put "not" in front of my email address.
Please remove it if you want to email me directly.
For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

[Ty Ford]

In Article >,
(RL,nyc) wrote:
(Brandon) wrote in message
>...
>> Any suggestions? Recommendations?
>
>Everybody is saying it: Royer Royer Royer. No joke...

No not everyone.

they are great
>mics.

As with all, for some things.

Right now I only have one. I use it on the kick drum when doing
>drums, and it is so good there that I cannot move it anywhere else, so
>I am contemplating getting 2 more for overheads. And I do use a
>TLM103 as a room mic sometimes and it does a pretty good job there,
>bringing that presence bump it has to the distance I have it away from
>the kit. Myself, I HATE that top end that everyone else loves which
>gets harsh and strident in the digital realm.
>
>Used to be with tape that the tape lost all the high end right away
>and you had to favor bright mics and eq to replace it, knowing that
>you were going to lose more when you mastered to vinyl on the lathe.
>Now in the digital era, you don't lose any top... in fact, because the
>wavelenghts are shorter, the resolution on the top tends to get very
>brittle.

What wavelengths? The reasons for digital brittleness could fill up this
forum for a year, if you're referring to the problems with each and every
circuit. My top 4 are:
1. Cheap Chinese mics
2. Bad mic/preamp combos
3. Cheesy preamps
4. Bad A/D conversion


I have been fighting with the mastering labs to attenuate
>that f**ing "Sheen" that they think has to be on everything, and am
>happy when I can get them to make a record sound dull, like an old
>vinyl record. Records only sound duller till the ears get used to a
>certain soundscape, which takes about 40 seconds, and only if they
>have been subjected to something brighter immediately before. Since
>most of the "competing" "product" out there sounds like crap a day
>later, I don't care one whit. After all, I want to still be able to
>listen to my records in 5 and 20 years. I don't want to love them
>this week and not be able to stand them a week later cause they
>produce ear fatigue.

We agree pretty much there.

>Back to the topic on hand...Ribbons have an uncanny way of sustaining
>a beautiful top end even into the digital crap era. For that reason
>alone, one should get used to understanding that there is PLENTY of
>top end in a Royer 121. My favorite mic hands down. but whatever you
>do, best luck.
>
>rl, nyc

Sorry, I can't hear it; backside or front. I'll stick with a Schoeps and
good preamps.

Regards,

Ty Ford




**Until the worm goes away, I have put "not" in front of my email address.
Please remove it if you want to email me directly.
For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

[Scott Dorsey]

RL,nyc > wrote:
>
>Everybody is saying it: Royer Royer Royer. No joke... they are great
>mics. Right now I only have one. I use it on the kick drum when doing
>drums, and it is so good there that I cannot move it anywhere else, so
>I am contemplating getting 2 more for overheads. And I do use a
>TLM103 as a room mic sometimes and it does a pretty good job there,
>bringing that presence bump it has to the distance I have it away from
>the kit. Myself, I HATE that top end that everyone else loves which
>gets harsh and strident in the digital realm.

There are a lot of condenser mikes out there that don't have that peaky
top end, if that's what you're looking for.

And if you like the Royer for overheads, you might also like the Beyer
M160, which has a little bit more detail and I think a flatter upper
midrange than the Royer. It's also great on drum overheads, and since
it's a hypercardioid you can get it in a little closer than you can the
figure-8 mikes. My real problem using any of these for overheads is that
I have to just pull them so far back to get decent room sound.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Used to be with tape that the tape lost all the high end right away
> and you had to favor bright mics and eq to replace it, knowing that
> you were going to lose more when you mastered to vinyl on the lathe.
> Now in the digital era, you don't lose any top... in fact, because the
> wavelenghts are shorter, the resolution on the top tends to get very
> brittle.

Microphone manufacturers seem to have quite a bit of control over the
frequency response shape of their mics. I wonder why they don't just
make flatter mics (in the directional patterns) for those who are
getting tired of the hyped high-mids.

It could be a competitive thing, that the majority of mics sold today
are still sold to inexperienced users, and those people would be
afraid of buying a mic that sounded dull compared to others. When you
get close to the $1000 range, it's not that hard to find a nice smooth
mic, or a contoured mic, whichever you want. But at the bottom-feeding
end, seems like if you want flat response, you have to get an omni,
and a somewhat noisy one at that.

Maybe one of those $35 Earthworks copy mics (Behringer?) would serve in
place of the Royer on the kick, freeing the Royer up to try elsewhere.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Brandon]

(Mikey) wrote in message news:
>Is there any reason you aren't considering better SDCs?

I'm not sure of what I can get for $1000 in the SDC area. From what I
read around here, I don't think $1k is gonig to get me something that
will bowl me over. Honestly, the Oktavas are good, but they seem
rather utilitarian to me. I knew, from this group, that buying from
the sound room would get me a good quality mic. They work and they
work well, but they're not my first choice on anything.

Both the 103 and 121 have a sound, a sound that I refer to as "higher
fi". I'm at least familiar enough with the 103 and 121 to know that
if I get another one, I'll be dealing with a great quality mic. I'm
sure opinions vary on the 103 and 121. I'm hoping that the experience
of this group with both mics can assist me in picking a mic that might
perform better. It's still all subjective I understand.

Another reason I'm limiting my choices is that I'm interested in
trying out different stereo techniques. I don't have a set of mics to
try a blumlein pair with. I don't think I'll get that with another
SDC set. The Royer would allow me to experiment and see if I like it,
plus retain its value should I decide to bail or make another choice.

Brandon

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Justin Ulysses Morse wrote:

> Garthrr wrote:

> > You can also turn the R 121 around so that the backside is toward the
> > kit. It is significantly brighter when used this way. I'm assuming that
> > being a few feet from the cymbals the mic would not be in any danger of
> > being harmed from the SPL of the cymbals although the mic is more
> > vunerable to damage when used this way.

> Where did you get that? You really think the SPL coming off of some
> cymbals is going to damage a microphone?

Not if you keep it away from the air blast of a hi-hat heading for
closure.

--
ha

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> And if you like the Royer for overheads, you might also like the Beyer
> M160,

Hey, now you're talkin'; I really do often appreciate the M160 over
drums.

--
ha

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Brandon wrote:

> (Mikey) wrote in message news:

> >Is there any reason you aren't considering better SDCs?

> I'm not sure of what I can get for $1000 in the SDC area.

Consider that a mathced pair of Josephson Series 4's are less than a
couple hundred more...

--
ha

[Rob Adelman]

RL,nyc wrote:

> Used to be with tape that the tape lost all the high end right away
> and you had to favor bright mics and eq to replace it, knowing that

This is wrong. You have the process backwards.

Start at the source. Then choose microphone/preamp. Then position
microphone. Listen with ears. Everything else is secondary.

If all the other processes are set up properly, then anything else in
the chain, assuming modern digital or analog equipment, is WAY less
important.

I think what you are referring to is that digital tends to make certain
high frequencies sound a little more strident, so you like to attenuate
highs on some tracks to make them sound more pleasant at the end. Of
course this can be accomplished way back at the beginning of the chain
(by using a duller microphone). But please don't blame this phenomena on
analog recording and playback equipment.

-Rob

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Rob Adelman wrote:

> RL,nyc wrote:

> > Used to be with tape that the tape lost all the high end right away
> > and you had to favor bright mics and eq to replace it, knowing that

> This is wrong. You have the process backwards.

Rob (Mortgage Man),

Do you have even half a clue to whom you are replying in that manner,
and what are the man's accomplishments in professional performance and
recording?

Open mouth, insert real estate?

He's talking about the way he prefers to _make records_, what he knows
about analog response and specral retention _from direct and successful
experience in that medium_, and how that compares with his present
activities in the digital realm, which also happen to be direct and
successful.

He is suggesting that a whole lot of aural pain is begotten from
ignoring differences in the two realms and then becoming inured to
hearing way too much high end compared to what we appreciated in days
gone by.

Note how much you like vinyl; now read again what RL has written, in the
light of your appreciation for the older medium.

--
ha

[Rob Adelman]

LeBaron & Alrich wrote:


> Rob (Mortgage Man),

What the hell is your problem with mortgages? And what does this have to
do with audio discussion?


> Do you have even half a clue to whom you are replying in that manner,
> and what are the man's accomplishments in professional performance and
> recording?

What manner is that? And no, I do not know who RL is. And whatever his
accomplishments, how does this effect stating my opinion?


> Open mouth, insert real estate?

What is your ****ing problem?

> He's talking about the way he prefers to _make records_, what he knows
> about analog response and specral retention _from direct and successful
> experience in that medium_, and how that compares with his present
> activities in the digital realm, which also happen to be direct and
> successful.

That's cool. But I still think analog recorders are capable of capturing
all the high frequency material you give them. I think technical data
supports this as well.



> Note how much you like vinyl; now read again what RL has written, in the
> light of your appreciation for the older medium.

I did this before I spoke. I stand by my contention that the media is
capable of reproducing highs through the full spectum of human hearing.

[EganMedia]

>It could be a competitive thing, that the majority of mics sold today
>are still sold to inexperienced users, and those people would be
>afraid of buying a mic that sounded dull compared to others.

That would explain why you can find TLM 170s for <$1000 on Ebay. I think it is
the most underrated Neumann mic precisely because it doesn't have the added
zizz of so many other large (okay, medium) diaphragm mics.


Joe Egan
EMP
Colchester, VT
www.eganmedia.com

[Les Cargill]

Mike Rivers wrote:
>
> In article > writes:
>
> > Used to be with tape that the tape lost all the high end right away
> > and you had to favor bright mics and eq to replace it, knowing that
> > you were going to lose more when you mastered to vinyl on the lathe.
> > Now in the digital era, you don't lose any top... in fact, because the
> > wavelenghts are shorter, the resolution on the top tends to get very
> > brittle.
>
> Microphone manufacturers seem to have quite a bit of control over the
> frequency response shape of their mics. I wonder why they don't just
> make flatter mics (in the directional patterns) for those who are
> getting tired of the hyped high-mids.
>
> It could be a competitive thing, that the majority of mics sold today
> are still sold to inexperienced users, and those people would be
> afraid of buying a mic that sounded dull compared to others. When you
> get close to the $1000 range, it's not that hard to find a nice smooth
> mic, or a contoured mic, whichever you want. But at the bottom-feeding
> end, seems like if you want flat response, you have to get an omni,
> and a somewhat noisy one at that.
>
> Maybe one of those $35 Earthworks copy mics (Behringer?) would serve in
> place of the Royer on the kick, freeing the Royer up to try elsewhere.
>

Behringer ECM8000. Nice mic on kick.

> --
> I'm really Mike Rivers - )
> However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
> lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
> you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
> and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo


--
Les Cargill

[Scott Dorsey]

In article <znr1068899120k@trad>, Mike Rivers > wrote:
>
>Microphone manufacturers seem to have quite a bit of control over the
>frequency response shape of their mics. I wonder why they don't just
>make flatter mics (in the directional patterns) for those who are
>getting tired of the hyped high-mids.

Because those of us who are getting tired of it are in the minority.
AKG makes a bunch of reasonably flat mikes, but what they sell in the
US are those horrible C1000 and C3000 mikes. The AKG folks tell me that
they are basically voiced specifically for the American market.

>It could be a competitive thing, that the majority of mics sold today
>are still sold to inexperienced users, and those people would be
>afraid of buying a mic that sounded dull compared to others. When you
>get close to the $1000 range, it's not that hard to find a nice smooth
>mic, or a contoured mic, whichever you want. But at the bottom-feeding
>end, seems like if you want flat response, you have to get an omni,
>and a somewhat noisy one at that.

Well, it's true that it's a lot easier to make cheap omni capsules that
are good than it is to make cheap cardioid capsules that are any good.

>Maybe one of those $35 Earthworks copy mics (Behringer?) would serve in
>place of the Royer on the kick, freeing the Royer up to try elsewhere.

Actually, I think the Behringer is a knockoff of the older low-end
measurement mike that Josephson first made. Or maybe a knockoff of
the Crown, which came out a little bit after the Josephson. Or maybe
a knockoff of the Audix, which came out a little bit after the Crown.
Or maybe...
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Brandon > wrote:
>
>I'm not sure of what I can get for $1000 in the SDC area. From what I
>read around here, I don't think $1k is gonig to get me something that
>will bowl me over. Honestly, the Oktavas are good, but they seem
>rather utilitarian to me. I knew, from this group, that buying from
>the sound room would get me a good quality mic. They work and they
>work well, but they're not my first choice on anything.

Try the Josephson Series Four. Two of them for $1000, and you will find
they are a lot cleaner than the Oktavas. Give them a listen. If you don't
like them, don't buy them. If you don't like them, then borrow a Schoeps
and just see if it makes you happy. If it doesn't, you probably won't be
happy with any of the small diaphragm condensers, which is a good thing to
know. But don't give up on them until you've done that.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Garthrr]

In article >, Justin Ulysses Morse
> writes:

>> You can also turn the R 121 around so that the backside is toward the kit.
>It
>> is significantly brighter when used this way. I'm assuming that being a few
>> feet from the cymbals the mic would not be in any danger of being harmed
>from
>> the SPL of the cymbals although the mic is more vunerable to damage when
>used
>> this way.

>Where did you get that? You really think the SPL coming off of some
>cymbals is going to damage a microphone?
>
>ulysses

No, as I said above I dont think it would although I have to admit that I was
considering the possibility.

Garth~


"I think the fact that music can come up a wire is a miracle."
Ed Cherney

[Fletcher]

Rob Adelman wrote:

>
>
> That's cool. But I still think analog recorders are capable of capturing
> all the high frequency material you give them. I think technical data
> supports this as well.

Yes, they are... and then you put the tape in the box... and a little bit of
treble you had yesterday 'self erased' over night... so you have a little less
the next day... and then you put the tape in the box... and a little bit of
treble you had yesterday 'self erased' over night... so you have a little less
the next day... and then you put the tape in the box [multiply by 30-45
days... or 3 months... or 6 months... and you start to get the picture.

"RL,nyc" wrote:

>
> Used to be with tape that the tape lost all the high end right away
> and you had to favor bright mics and eq to replace it, knowing that
> you were going to lose more when you mastered to vinyl on the lathe.
> Now in the digital era, you don't lose any top...

<snip happens>

>
> Back to the topic on hand...Ribbons have an uncanny way of sustaining
> a beautiful top end even into the digital crap era. For that reason
> alone, one should get used to understanding that there is PLENTY of
> top end in a Royer 121. My favorite mic hands down. but whatever you
> do, best luck.

>
>
> > Note how much you like vinyl; now read again what RL has written, in the
> > light of your appreciation for the older medium.
>
> I did this before I spoke. I stand by my contention that the media is
> capable of reproducing highs through the full spectum of human hearing.

Capability and reality being two different things. Yes, the machinery is
capable of capturing and reproducing highs through the full spectrum of human
hearing... no, it's not capable of preserving the original *quantity* of highs
originally laid upon the tape... so you start with some **** that's a little
brighter than you envision it ending up as you know you're going to have some
self erasure issues.

Some folks that have been through the record making process in the analog
domain a couple/three times have experienced this... it's not something anyone
made up on the spot... honest.
--
Fletcher
Mercenary Audio
TEL: 508-543-0069
FAX: 508-543-9670
http://www.mercenary.com
"this is not a problem"

[Nathan Eldred]

That's a hard choice, because I like both mics in their right place,
but neither for overheads. The R-121, is a ribbon, and a damn fine
one, but for me ribbons don't work on overheads in general. The
TLM103 is a condenser, which in general I like better, but it's a LDC
and it seems kind of beamy in it's directionality and the ups and
downs in it's frequency response (especially off axis) make it not so
great a condenter. I'd go for the TLM if I had to. I'd go for
neither if I had a choice, for this application.

Nathan Eldred
http://www.atlasproaudio.com



(Brandon) wrote in message >...
> I know this is somewhat apples to oranges here. I've got one of each
> mic. I'm looking to buy another one to use primarily as drum
> overheads and a general stereo set. The recent price increase of the
> 103 makes these mics closer in the price range than they used to be.
> I do have a matched set of sound room oktavas. I don't like them much
> for overheads as I don't feel I'm getting the toms as much as I would
> like. I think I'm gonig for a "this is the drum kit" sound.?
>
> My drum room is going to be a good size. My guess is 20'x30' with a
> slopping ceiling that goes from say 8' to 15'. It's a house, I
> haven't moved in yet, so I don't have the specifics, but by my home
> studio standards, the room is "huge". ;-)
>
> So, what kinds of things can I expect from an X/Y, ORTF, spaced set of
> tlm103s vs. a blumlein set of R-121s? I've never heard a blumlein set
> before, so I don't know what to expect.
>
> I have a Langevin DVC, so I was thinking that I would be able to give
> the R-121s a bit of rise in the 8kHz or 12kHz range to make up for
> their natural roll off. LIkewise, I can adjust the tlm103 at those
> frequencies too.
>
> Any suggestions? Recommendations?

[RL,nyc]

(Ty Ford) wrote in message >...
>
> What wavelengths? The reasons for digital brittleness could fill up this
> forum for a year, if you're referring to the problems with each and every
> circuit. My top 4 are:
> 1. Cheap Chinese mics
> 2. Bad mic/preamp combos
> 3. Cheesy preamps
> 4. Bad A/D conversion
>

I am going to try to explain what I am talking about in the only way
that I know how: by metaphor and simile.

First of all, about audio recording tape losing high-end: audiotape is
coated with a layer of particles which are subject to magnetic force.
When audio is converted into a magnetic field it aligns the audiotape
to conform to it as it passes over the record head. But because we
live in an imperfect world, the particles on audiotape do not
necessarily stay where we put them. If they come in contact with any
other magnetic field they will get readjusted. They will also be
subject to any other physical force like dropping the tape on the
floor. This won't completely rearrange the magnetic field but may
have some impact. The newly magnetized tape is also now able to
influence anything placed near it, so that when you store the tape,
one layer of the tape may influence its neighbors. This is what leads
to the effect called print through, which is quite famous for being
very audible on some Led Zeppelin tapes, because the hotter you record
to tape is stronger the magnetic field on the tape so that when you
wind it up you have a bigger chance of getting this undesirable
effect.

Now, we should think about sound waves and frequencies. Lower
frequencies are longer and higher frequencies are shorter. This much
does not need Einstein. Let's say that we had piles of sand to
represent the different wavelengths. Nice big hills of sand to
represent the bass and nice little ripples of sand to represent the
high-end. Now along comes an earthquake. It's not a very big
earthquake just a little one. It is not very hard to imagine that the
larger hills which represents the longer waves of the lower
frequencies might still be recognizable after a bit of shaking whereas
the shorter frequencies would become more diffused.

This is exactly what happens on audiotape. You record something and
you store the tape and you come back to listen to it critically and if
you have the ears for it you notice that the sound has "softened". It
may seem as though the sound has "settled", or gotten "smoother", or
that you have lost high-end. In fact, what has happened to the
high-end has happened to everything on the tape, but the shorter
wavelengths of the treble show evidence that the low-end can manage to
hide. If you have been through this enough, you may begin to record
bright and to favor mics which give you a lot of top, knowing that the
top and is going to soften, or sag. You may also start to use
equalization to recover that snappy high-end.

Now that we are in a world of digital recording media, things have
changed considerably. Theoretically we should be able to reproduce
things accurately and we should expect the exact same information
every time we play something we have recorded. While we CAN recover
the same information every time we play back to digitally recorded
tape, unfortunately we cannot yet record sound accurately, especially
as we get into the high-end frequencies, no matter what they are
trying to sell you. Again I need to resort to metaphor and simile:

There are no waves in digital media. Reproduction is by straight
lines only, or by the binary system of 1 or not one. It may interest
some that the original concept which turned into the computer is
reported to have been suggested to the guy who invented this by the
ancient Chinese system of the I-Ching, which is a divinitory system of
straight and broken lines. The man who invented the modern computer
replaced the I-Ching's straight lines with one's and the broken lines
with zeros. Anyway, back to our story:

Imagine that you needed to reproduce some waves using only straight
lines. It is easy to see that with only two lines you would only be
able to draw a zigzag. With three lines, a plateau. With four, 5, 6
and more lines you start to get a better representation. We used to
make circles out of straight lines in math class. Maybe you did too.
Anyway, this has been one of the major difficulties in reproducing
waveform in the digital realm. The longer and smoother waveforms of
the low-end require less straight lines to reproduce an image of than
do the shorter wavelengths of the high-end. The shorter the
wavelength, the more straight lines it would require to accurately
reproduce. This is why having as many bits as possible is preferable
in the digital realm. This ought to be pretty easy to picture. This
is before the issue of converters, preamps, mics or anything else.

I hope that my explanations help to understand what I have been
saying. The analogy is not perfect, but it ought to be able to let
the reader develop a much better mental piture of what is going on in
the analog and digital realms when recording audio. Please do not
drive a truck through my specious arguments. I already understand, as
the Taoists say, that : "only error is transmitted".

Best regards,
rl,nyc

[Ty Ford]

In Article <znr1068899120k@trad>, (Mike Rivers) wrote:
>
>In article >
writes:
>
>> Used to be with tape that the tape lost all the high end right away
>> and you had to favor bright mics and eq to replace it, knowing that
>> you were going to lose more when you mastered to vinyl on the lathe.
>> Now in the digital era, you don't lose any top... in fact, because the
>> wavelenghts are shorter, the resolution on the top tends to get very
>> brittle.
>
>Microphone manufacturers seem to have quite a bit of control over the
>frequency response shape of their mics. I wonder why they don't just
>make flatter mics (in the directional patterns) for those who are
>getting tired of the hyped high-mids.
>
>It could be a competitive thing, that the majority of mics sold today
>are still sold to inexperienced users, and those people would be
>afraid of buying a mic that sounded dull compared to others. When you
>get close to the $1000 range, it's not that hard to find a nice smooth
>mic, or a contoured mic, whichever you want. But at the bottom-feeding
>end, seems like if you want flat response, you have to get an omni,
>and a somewhat noisy one at that.

Very clever Mike. Question asked and answered.


Regards,

Ty

**Until the worm goes away, I have put "not" in front of my email address.
Please remove it if you want to email me directly.
For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

[Ty Ford]

In Article >,
(Brandon) wrote:
(Mikey) wrote in message news:
>>Is there any reason you aren't considering better SDCs?
>
>I'm not sure of what I can get for $1000 in the SDC area. From what I
>read around here, I don't think $1k is gonig to get me something that
>will bowl me over. Honestly, the Oktavas are good, but they seem
>rather utilitarian to me. I knew, from this group, that buying from
>the sound room would get me a good quality mic. They work and they
>work well, but they're not my first choice on anything.

a pair of matched, used KM 84


>Both the 103 and 121 have a sound, a sound that I refer to as "higher
>fi". I'm at least familiar enough with the 103 and 121 to know that
>if I get another one, I'll be dealing with a great quality mic. I'm
>sure opinions vary on the 103 and 121. I'm hoping that the experience
>of this group with both mics can assist me in picking a mic that might
>perform better. It's still all subjective I understand.

The two are very different. For low level sources, I would NOT try a ribbon.
I didn't care for either royer (either backwards or forwards) on acoustic as
compared to a good condenser. There just wasn't enough top end and air for me.

>Another reason I'm limiting my choices is that I'm interested in
>trying out different stereo techniques. I don't have a set of mics to
>try a blumlein pair with. I don't think I'll get that with another
>SDC set. The Royer would allow me to experiment and see if I like it,
>plus retain its value should I decide to bail or make another choice.
>
>Brandon

Try two at 4050 for blumlein. (note to Bob Cain: These are not elitest mics)

Regards,

Ty Ford

**Until the worm goes away, I have put "not" in front of my email address.
Please remove it if you want to email me directly.
For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

[Ty Ford]

In Article >, Rob Adelman
> wrote:
>
>
>RL,nyc wrote:
>
>> Used to be with tape that the tape lost all the high end right away
>> and you had to favor bright mics and eq to replace it, knowing that
>
>This is wrong. You have the process backwards.
>
>Start at the source. Then choose microphone/preamp. Then position
>microphone. Listen with ears. Everything else is secondary.
>
>If all the other processes are set up properly, then anything else in
>the chain, assuming modern digital or analog equipment, is WAY less
>important.
>
>I think what you are referring to is that digital tends to make certain
>high frequencies sound a little more strident, so you like to attenuate
>highs on some tracks to make them sound more pleasant at the end. Of
>course this can be accomplished way back at the beginning of the chain
>(by using a duller microphone). But please don't blame this phenomena on
>analog recording and playback equipment.
>
>-Rob


Rob,

I think he's right. Analog tape does suck up a lot of HF transients. We call
that tape compression.

Regards,

Ty Ford


**Until the worm goes away, I have put "not" in front of my email address.
Please remove it if you want to email me directly.
For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

[Scott Dorsey]

Ty Ford > wrote:
>I think he's right. Analog tape does suck up a lot of HF transients. We call
>that tape compression.

It can if you want it to. But if you don't want it to, you can run at low
operating levels and get very nice response to transients. At 185 nW/M
with 468, I can record a trumpet and you won't be able to tell the source
input from the playback head output.

You can soften things with analogue tape, but there's no reason you have to.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> I still think analog recorders are capable of capturing
> all the high frequency material you give them. I think technical data
> supports this as well.

This is true. A well aligned good quality analog recorder will record
reasonably flat well beyond the nyquist frequency of a 44.1 or 48 kHz
digital recorder. But that's REASONABLY flat, on good days, maybe
+/- 1 dB between 1 kHz and 25 kHz at 30 ips. A 96 kHz digital recorder
will be dead flat up to at least 40 kHz. Of course distortion products
for each will be different, and measurably greater with simple
techniques on an analog recorder. This is part of what makes for the
difference in sound, and the preference for one over the other in
certain circumstances.

It's true that from the first rewind-and-play, the high end on an
analog tape deteriorates. Some engineers are really bothered by this
and attempt to compensate by adding more top end when recording (and
also adding more distortion and phase shift between harmonics of the
same tone), others just like to complain about it in Mix interviews.

Still others enjoy the convenience and reliability of an analog
recorder, and prefer the sound of the perceived disadvantages more
than the measured advantages.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Scott Dorsey]

In article <znr1068990100k@trad>, Mike Rivers > wrote:
>
>It's true that from the first rewind-and-play, the high end on an
>analog tape deteriorates. Some engineers are really bothered by this
>and attempt to compensate by adding more top end when recording (and
>also adding more distortion and phase shift between harmonics of the
>same tone), others just like to complain about it in Mix interviews.

If the machine is calibrated right, the machine emphasis should take
care of all of this.

There are still problems with SOME tapes (like 456) which tend to lose
a little top end after a day or so of storage. But that is a flaw in
the tape formulation and not something inherent in analogue recording.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Rob Adelman]

RL,nyc wrote:

>
> This is exactly what happens on audiotape. You record something and
> you store the tape and you come back to listen to it critically and if
> you have the ears for it you notice that the sound has "softened". It
> may seem as though the sound has "settled", or gotten "smoother", or
> that you have lost high-end. In fact, what has happened to the
> high-end has happened to everything on the tape, but the shorter
> wavelengths of the treble show evidence that the low-end can manage to
> hide. If you have been through this enough, you may begin to record
> bright and to favor mics which give you a lot of top, knowing that the
> top and is going to soften, or sag. You may also start to use
> equalization to recover that snappy high-end.

Great explanation. I am sure I have run into this but since it is a
gradual process may have overlooked what was actually happening. So
assuming I am recording on an analog recorder and want to prepare for
this, how would you estimate how much loss to expect? Tell me if this is
wrong, but I am guessing you would add some brightness on record either
through mic selection/position or eq and reduce the high on playback
slowing increasing it as I am going through hundreds of playbacks?

-Rob

[EganMedia]

>Still others enjoy the convenience and reliability of an analog
>recorder,

That's kind of like saying "the convenience and reliablity of a woman".

I like both women and analog recording. And for some things there is no
substitute for either, but I find dogs and backed-up digital to be both more
convenient and reliable.

....and then my wife walked in while I was typing this...

I'll be doing my own laundry this week.


Joe Egan
EMP
Colchester, VT
www.eganmedia.com

[Brandon]

(Nathan Eldred) wrote in message news:

> The R-121, is a ribbon, and a damn fine
> one, but for me ribbons don't work on overheads in general.

Hey Nathan,

What is is about ribbons, in general, that make them not not work well
on overheads for you? Since some people can get a bit defensive
around here, let me clarify that I'm asking for your opinion on the
matter.

Brandon

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Fletcher wrote:

> Rob Adelman wrote:

> > That's cool. But I still think analog recorders are capable of capturing
> > all the high frequency material you give them. I think technical data
> > supports this as well.

> Yes, they are... and then you put the tape in the box... and a little bit of
> treble you had yesterday 'self erased' over night... so you have a little less
> the next day... and then you put the tape in the box... and a little bit of
> treble you had yesterday 'self erased' over night... so you have a little less
> the next day... and then you put the tape in the box [multiply by 30-45
> days... or 3 months... or 6 months... and you start to get the picture.

So if I want to get a portion of that picture from day one through day
<stick big number here> while using digital storage I can do so just by
starting off with a ribbon mic, kind of like RL suggested. Who knows,
maybe he's done this before.

--
ha

[Ty Ford]

In Article >, (Scott Dorsey)
wrote:
>Ty Ford > wrote:
>>I think he's right. Analog tape does suck up a lot of HF transients. We call
>>that tape compression.
>
>It can if you want it to. But if you don't want it to, you can run at low
>operating levels and get very nice response to transients. At 185 nW/M
>with 468, I can record a trumpet and you won't be able to tell the source
>input from the playback head output.
>
>You can soften things with analogue tape, but there's no reason you have to.
>--scott


I think Fletcher's comment hold more water here. It's not the immediate
recording process that always softens the top end. It's the deterioration
due to storage (and what shuttling wears off).

Regards,

Ty Ford

**Until the worm goes away, I have put "not" in front of my email address.
Please remove it if you want to email me directly.
For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

[Ty Ford]

In Article >, Rob Adelman
> wrote:
>
>
>RL,nyc wrote:
>
>>
>> This is exactly what happens on audiotape. You record something and
>> you store the tape and you come back to listen to it critically and if
>> you have the ears for it you notice that the sound has "softened". It
>> may seem as though the sound has "settled", or gotten "smoother", or
>> that you have lost high-end. In fact, what has happened to the
>> high-end has happened to everything on the tape, but the shorter
>> wavelengths of the treble show evidence that the low-end can manage to
>> hide. If you have been through this enough, you may begin to record
>> bright and to favor mics which give you a lot of top, knowing that the
>> top and is going to soften, or sag. You may also start to use
>> equalization to recover that snappy high-end.
>
>Great explanation. I am sure I have run into this but since it is a
>gradual process may have overlooked what was actually happening. So
>assuming I am recording on an analog recorder and want to prepare for
>this, how would you estimate how much loss to expect? Tell me if this is
>wrong, but I am guessing you would add some brightness on record either
>through mic selection/position or eq and reduce the high on playback
>slowing increasing it as I am going through hundreds of playbacks?
>
>-Rob


I think that's how it's been addressed in the past. And if you add more
than a certain amount, you're doing HF selective tape compression. Jump
forward a few years into digital recording in which you don't lose the top
end, converters are (well teh first ones) not designed well and you get what
we got.

Regards,

Ty Ford




]

**Until the worm goes away, I have put "not" in front of my email address.
Please remove it if you want to email me directly.
For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> If the machine is calibrated right, the machine emphasis should take
> care of all of this.

This makes it so that you get back what you put in, but unless you
re-adjust the playback EQ to reference tones (lots of them) when you
really want to hear what the tape sounds like, it doesn't help with
the long term degradation.

> There are still problems with SOME tapes (like 456) which tend to lose
> a little top end after a day or so of storage. But that is a flaw in
> the tape formulation and not something inherent in analogue recording.

I think that what the Stars of Mix like to worry about is loss of
highs due to wear and partial erasure.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

RL,nyc wrote:

> This is exactly what happens on audiotape. You record something and
> you store the tape and you come back to listen to it critically and if
> you have the ears for it you notice that the sound has "softened". It
> may seem as though the sound has "settled", or gotten "smoother", or
> that you have lost high-end.

You listen to anything after some time in storage and it will sound
different than what you remembered. Remember that your ears and memory
have been "in storage" for a while too. People claim that they
remember exactly what a recording sounded like (or what it sounded
like in the studio that day) but memories are far less accurate than
storage media.

It's true that there are environmental things that can affect an
analog tape more drastically than a digital storage medium - stray
magnetic fields being one, so you need to take care of your tapes to
assure that they don't get any worse than they would in a perfect
environment.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Scott Dorsey]

In article <znr1069009891k@trad>, Mike Rivers > wrote:
>In article > writes:
>
>> If the machine is calibrated right, the machine emphasis should take
>> care of all of this.
>
>This makes it so that you get back what you put in, but unless you
>re-adjust the playback EQ to reference tones (lots of them) when you
>really want to hear what the tape sounds like, it doesn't help with
>the long term degradation.

That's why we put tone ladders at the beginning of each tape, of course!
You NEED to re-equalize for each tape on playback, when you're dealing
with stuff that may have losses due to storage, or may have been made on
originally miscalibrated equipment to begin with.

>> There are still problems with SOME tapes (like 456) which tend to lose
>> a little top end after a day or so of storage. But that is a flaw in
>> the tape formulation and not something inherent in analogue recording.
>
>I think that what the Stars of Mix like to worry about is loss of
>highs due to wear and partial erasure.

I can see folks having problems if they are going back and forth over
the same bit of tape hundreds of times doing punch ins and punch outs.
But that's what Pro Tools is for. There's no reason to do that with
analogue tape any more, because it's something analogue tape doesn't do
very well.
--scott

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

[Geoff Wood]

"Ty Ford" > wrote in message
>
> I think he's right. Analog tape does suck up a lot of HF transients. We
call
> that tape compression.

And much of the failure to adjust recording techniques (a gear = mics in
this instance) when used with digital can be what we call 'digital
harshness" ?


geoff

[Geoff Wood]

"Brandon" > wrote in message
om...
> (Nathan Eldred) wrote in message news:
>
> > The R-121, is a ribbon, and a damn fine
> > one, but for me ribbons don't work on overheads in general.
>
> Hey Nathan,
>
> What is is about ribbons, in general, that make them not not work well
> on overheads for you? Since some people can get a bit defensive
> around here, let me clarify that I'm asking for your opinion on the
> matter.


Figure 8, for a start. Especially if anything other that a very high and/or
cathedral ceiling.

geoff

PS Other than for polarity correctness, then front or back of a ribbon
should be identical, no ?

[WillStG]

>Justin Ulysses Morse

>I've got a pair of Royer 121s that get used a hell of a lot more than
>my pair of Neumann U89s, which aren't too dissimilar to the TLM103 I suppose.
>

I think the TLM103 sounds more like a U87 in it's aggressiveness Justin,
the U89 doesn't have the same peakiness. So for example I probably wouldn't use
the TLM103/U87 on an "essy" soprano but the U89 might be a good choice. The
TLM103 is also a quiet mic with a pretty hot output level, drums usually being
pretty loud the self noise isn't an important factor but you'll have a very hot
output.

I was thinking the original poster might consider a couple of $40
Behringer Omni measurement mics, they're so cheap and usable for the purpose
they're worth a serious shot. They test pretty damn flat, and while being a
bit noisy for classical work they are quiet enough for drums, pretty nice as a
spaced omni pair over a kit. Spaced omnis really help open up the sound in a
small room/drum booth, I've used B&K 4006's for that and the Behringer's I
beleive are pretty close in frequency response. And it might help with some of
the low end the guy's missing.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[littledog]

> PS Other than for polarity correctness, then front or back of a ribbon
> should be identical, no ?

No, that is not correct. Go to the Royer website, and you will see a
discussion of exactly how different the front and back are, and some
suggested applications for taking advantage of that difference.

[Nathan Eldred]

(Brandon) wrote:

> What is is about ribbons, in general, that make them not not work well
> on overheads for you? Since some people can get a bit defensive
> around here, let me clarify that I'm asking for your opinion on the
> matter.


Thanks Brandon. Actually it's not the figure of 8 pattern at all
(somebody said something about that below). I use Blumlein (90 degree
figure 8's) for overheads all the time, but in a condenser, usually a
small diaphram condenser like my pair of Neumann KM86's. I really
like ribbons for drum room mics, they have a different sonic footprint
than condensers, so they are very complimentary to the overhead sound
and create something more unique and large sounding when blended with
the OH's. The high frequencies, even when EQ's with a really good EQ
just don't sound 'right' to me on overheads or acoustic (which seems
to favor similar mics as overheads to my ears). That's the only way I
can explain it, usually it comes off as papery sounding. Put up a
good condenser and it's already there, ready to go. If I had to use a
ribbon for overheads, it would be a Royer SF-12. I've heard some
people say that they like using a ribbon because it gets rid of the
edge from digital, I think there may be an issue somewhere else in the
signal chain, especially in the conversion if that's the case (IMO).

Nathan Eldred
http://www.atlasproaudio.com

[Garthrr]

>> PS Other than for polarity correctness, then front or back of a ribbon
>> should be identical, no ?

Not with the Royer. The front allows higher SPL to be recorded but sounds
darker than the back side.

Garth~


"I think the fact that music can come up a wire is a miracle."
Ed Cherney

[Geoff Wood]

"littledog" > wrote in message
...
> > PS Other than for polarity correctness, then front or back of a ribbon
> > should be identical, no ?
>
> No, that is not correct. Go to the Royer website, and you will see a
> discussion of exactly how different the front and back are, and some
> suggested applications for taking advantage of that difference.

So it's not really figure 8 then ? More like a figure 7 1/2 ?

I would expect a true figure 8 mic to be identical front and back. The
offset design presumably does make subtle differences apart from differing
proximity effect that would make it less than ideal for MS ?

geoff

[Ty Ford]

In Article >, "Geoff Wood"
-nospam> wrote:
>
>"Ty Ford" > wrote in message
>>
>> I think he's right. Analog tape does suck up a lot of HF transients. We
>call
>> that tape compression.
>
>And much of the failure to adjust recording techniques (a gear = mics in
>this instance) when used with digital can be what we call 'digital
>harshness" ?
>
>
>geoff


I think so. ...and mic/preamp matches and A/D converters.

Ty


**Until the worm goes away, I have put "not" in front of my email address.
Please remove it if you want to email me directly.
For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

[Scott Dorsey]

Geoff Wood -nospam> wrote:
>"littledog" > wrote in message
...
>> > PS Other than for polarity correctness, then front or back of a ribbon
>> > should be identical, no ?
>>
>> No, that is not correct. Go to the Royer website, and you will see a
>> discussion of exactly how different the front and back are, and some
>> suggested applications for taking advantage of that difference.
>
>So it's not really figure 8 then ? More like a figure 7 1/2 ?

Yup. The AEA R84 is the same way. Personally, I don't like this, but it
gives you an additional set of sounds.

>I would expect a true figure 8 mic to be identical front and back. The
>offset design presumably does make subtle differences apart from differing
>proximity effect that would make it less than ideal for MS ?

Yes, and it also results in a poorer null at high frequencies than it might
otherwise have.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Brandon wrote:

> (Nathan Eldred) wrote in message news:

> > The R-121, is a ribbon, and a damn fine
> > one, but for me ribbons don't work on overheads in general.

> Hey Nathan,

> What is is about ribbons, in general, that make them not not work well
> on overheads for you? Since some people can get a bit defensive
> around here, let me clarify that I'm asking for your opinion on the
> matter.

The Beyer M160 is one of my personal favorites for OH, both for its
sound and for its unusual pattern which allows rotating the mic in the
clip to balance what OH hears of the whole kit.

--
ha

[Fletcher]

"Geoff Wood" -nospam> wrote in message
...
>

> >
> > What is is about ribbons, in general, that make them not not work well
> > on overheads for you? Since some people can get a bit defensive
> > around here, let me clarify that I'm asking for your opinion on the
> > matter.
>
>
> Figure 8, for a start. Especially if anything other that a very high
and/or
> cathedral ceiling.


Nonsense, they work very well with a ceiling as low as 12'
--
Fletcher
Mercenary Audio
TEL: 508-543-0069
FAX: 508-543-9670
http://www.mercenary.com
"this is not a problem"

[Geoff Wood]

"Fletcher" > wrote in message news:o8fub.7210>
>
> Nonsense, they work very well with a ceiling as low as 12'

I call anything over the standard 2.4m (8ft) 'high'. The point I was
making was that if you are getting reflections from a close ceiling into the
rear of the mic, then the resultant sound will be somewhat 'variable'.

geoff

[Ty Ford]

In Article >, (Scott Dorsey)
wrote:
>In article <znr1069009891k@trad>, Mike Rivers > wrote:
>>In article > writes:
>>
>>> If the machine is calibrated right, the machine emphasis should take
>>> care of all of this.
>>
>>This makes it so that you get back what you put in, but unless you
>>re-adjust the playback EQ to reference tones (lots of them) when you
>>really want to hear what the tape sounds like, it doesn't help with
>>the long term degradation.
>
>That's why we put tone ladders at the beginning of each tape, of course!
>You NEED to re-equalize for each tape on playback, when you're dealing
>with stuff that may have losses due to storage, or may have been made on
>originally miscalibrated equipment to begin with.

So you're endorsing the idea of jacking up the high end based on the tones
on the tape that were (hopefully) laid down when tracks were first recorded?
Obviously the HF tones would also lose level as well. That, of course, would
require you to recalibrate the Playback EQ with each tape. A bit of work,
but OK.

Regards,

Ty Ford

**Until the worm goes away, I have put "not" in front of my email address.
Please remove it if you want to email me directly.
For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

[Ty Ford]

In Article >,
(littledog) wrote:
>> PS Other than for polarity correctness, then front or back of a ribbon
>> should be identical, no ?
>
>No, that is not correct. Go to the Royer website, and you will see a
>discussion of exactly how different the front and back are, and some
>suggested applications for taking advantage of that difference.


Well, Royer purposely positioned the ribbon to the front of the peak
magnetic so the ribbon would move into the peak flux area. The byproduct of
that was more HF response on the back. Other bidirectional ribbons may not
have been built the same way.

Regards,

Ty Ford

**Until the worm goes away, I have put "not" in front of my email address.
Please remove it if you want to email me directly.
For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

[Ty Ford]

In Article >,
(Garthrr) wrote:
>
>>> PS Other than for polarity correctness, then front or back of a ribbon
>>> should be identical, no ?
>
>Not with the Royer. The front allows higher SPL to be recorded but sounds
>darker than the back side.


Um, I think this may not be quite right. The back side has more HF response.
It is NOT darker. (see my previous post)

Regards,

Ty Ford

**Until the worm goes away, I have put "not" in front of my email address.
Please remove it if you want to email me directly.
For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

[Ty Ford]

In Article >, "Geoff Wood"
-nospam> wrote:
>
>"littledog" > wrote in message
...
>> > PS Other than for polarity correctness, then front or back of a ribbon
>> > should be identical, no ?
>>
>> No, that is not correct. Go to the Royer website, and you will see a
>> discussion of exactly how different the front and back are, and some
>> suggested applications for taking advantage of that difference.
>
>So it's not really figure 8 then ? More like a figure 7 1/2 ?
>
>I would expect a true figure 8 mic to be identical front and back. The
>offset design presumably does make subtle differences apart from differing
>proximity effect that would make it less than ideal for MS ?
>
>geoff


Geoff,

the more figure of eight mics I hear, the more I hear that (besides the
reversed polarity effect of listening to one's own voice using the backside
while listening with headphones) both sides of the figure of eight DON'T
sound the same.

And yes that defeats the purpose of MS recording. One has to be pretty
careful choosing a figure of eight for MS to be sure the back and front are
the same.

Regards,

Ty Ford



**Until the worm goes away, I have put "not" in front of my email address.
Please remove it if you want to email me directly.
For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

[Fletcher]

"Geoff Wood" -nospam> wrote in message
...
>
> "Fletcher" > wrote in message news:o8fub.7210>
> >
> > Nonsense, they work very well with a ceiling as low as 12'
>
> I call anything over the standard 2.4m (8ft) 'high'. The point I was
> making was that if you are getting reflections from a close ceiling into
the
> rear of the mic, then the resultant sound will be somewhat 'variable'.


Yes, it would be somewhat variable... it is also known as "the sound of the
room"... which may, or may not be "boxy"... FWIW, I've found that rooms
start to feel a bit less 'boxy' when the ceiling is around 12' [4m ish]...
but YMMV.
--
Fletcher
Mercenary Audio
TEL: 508-543-0069
FAX: 508-543-9670
http://www.mercenary.com
"this is not a problem"

[Garthrr]

In article >, (Ty
Ford) writes:

>>
>>Not with the Royer. The front allows higher SPL to be recorded but sounds
>>darker than the back side.
>
>
>Um, I think this may not be quite right. The back side has more HF response.
>It is NOT darker. (see my previous post)
>
>Regards,
>
>Ty Ford

Ty read the sentence again. I said that the front was darker, not the back. See
MY previous post. <g>

Garth~




"I think the fact that music can come up a wire is a miracle."
Ed Cherney

[Stephen Sank]

This is why the best bipolar ribbons, e.g., BK-11, 44-BX, and other well
designed bipolars, e.g., B&O BM-3/4/5/6, have absolutely symetrical
architecture from front to back, so that front & back response curves are
identical. It would be really tricky to get a rock solid l/r balance in an
m/s pair without such uniform front/back response on the bipolar.

--
Stephen Sank, Owner & Ribbon Mic Restorer
Talking Dog Transducer Company
http://stephensank.com
5517 Carmelita Drive N.E.
Albuquerque, New Mexico [87111]
505-332-0336
Auth. Nakamichi & McIntosh servicer
Payments preferred through Paypal.com
"Ty Ford" > wrote in message
...
> In Article >, "Geoff Wood"
> -nospam> wrote:
> >
> >"littledog" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> > PS Other than for polarity correctness, then front or back of a
ribbon
> >> > should be identical, no ?
> >>
> >> No, that is not correct. Go to the Royer website, and you will see a
> >> discussion of exactly how different the front and back are, and some
> >> suggested applications for taking advantage of that difference.
> >
> >So it's not really figure 8 then ? More like a figure 7 1/2 ?
> >
> >I would expect a true figure 8 mic to be identical front and back. The
> >offset design presumably does make subtle differences apart from
differing
> >proximity effect that would make it less than ideal for MS ?
> >
> >geoff
>
>
> Geoff,
>
> the more figure of eight mics I hear, the more I hear that (besides the
> reversed polarity effect of listening to one's own voice using the
backside
> while listening with headphones) both sides of the figure of eight DON'T
> sound the same.
>
> And yes that defeats the purpose of MS recording. One has to be pretty
> careful choosing a figure of eight for MS to be sure the back and front
are
> the same.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ty Ford
>
>
>
> **Until the worm goes away, I have put "not" in front of my email address.
> Please remove it if you want to email me directly.
> For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
> click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford
>

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> So you're endorsing the idea of jacking up the high end based on the tones
> on the tape that were (hopefully) laid down when tracks were first recorded?
> Obviously the HF tones would also lose level as well. That, of course, would
> require you to recalibrate the Playback EQ with each tape. A bit of work,
> but OK.

You do what you gotta do in order to get playback to be as close to
what was originally intended. Acutally it only takes a few minutes to
recalibrate the playback, even on a multitrack machine. There's
usually only two adjustments per channel. But it can get to be a pain
if there's only 15 seconds of tone.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> This is why the best bipolar ribbons, e.g., BK-11, 44-BX, and other well
> designed bipolars, e.g., B&O BM-3/4/5/6, have absolutely symetrical
> architecture from front to back, so that front & back response curves are
> identical. It would be really tricky to get a rock solid l/r balance in an
> m/s pair without such uniform front/back response on the bipolar.

There's a differnce in philosophy today than in your Dad's day. Today,
the idea is that if you can build two sounds into one mic, that's
better than a pure figure-8 pattern. You get the advantage of side
rejection plus two somewhat different sounds.

I don't think that using one of those non-symmetrical Royer mics as
the side pickup of an M-S pair is a great idea, and I'm sure that
Royer concurs. I'll bet that their stereo configuration has a
symmetrical pattern, but I've never checked it out.




--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Stephen Sank]

This is why I want to start building BK-11's again. Anybody got $100,000
they can lend me?

--
Stephen Sank, Owner & Ribbon Mic Restorer
Talking Dog Transducer Company
http://stephensank.com
5517 Carmelita Drive N.E.
Albuquerque, New Mexico [87111]
505-332-0336
Auth. Nakamichi & McIntosh servicer
Payments preferred through Paypal.com
"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
news:znr1069170194k@trad...
>
> In article > writes:
>
> > This is why the best bipolar ribbons, e.g., BK-11, 44-BX, and other well
> > designed bipolars, e.g., B&O BM-3/4/5/6, have absolutely symetrical
> > architecture from front to back, so that front & back response curves
are
> > identical. It would be really tricky to get a rock solid l/r balance in
an
> > m/s pair without such uniform front/back response on the bipolar.
>
> There's a differnce in philosophy today than in your Dad's day. Today,
> the idea is that if you can build two sounds into one mic, that's
> better than a pure figure-8 pattern. You get the advantage of side
> rejection plus two somewhat different sounds.
>
> I don't think that using one of those non-symmetrical Royer mics as
> the side pickup of an M-S pair is a great idea, and I'm sure that
> Royer concurs. I'll bet that their stereo configuration has a
> symmetrical pattern, but I've never checked it out.
>
>
>
>
> --
> I'm really Mike Rivers - )
> However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
> lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
> you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
> and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> This is why I want to start building BK-11's again. Anybody got $100,000
> they can lend me?

Wes Dooley said he robbed his daughter's college fund to build his
first R44. If you don't have a daughter who might not go to college,
maybe you can borrow Wes'. <g>



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Bill Thompson]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Ty Ford > wrote:
>
>>Kludge wrote:
>>
>>>That's why we put tone ladders at the beginning of each tape, of course!
>>>You NEED to re-equalize for each tape on playback, when you're dealing
>>>with stuff that may have losses due to storage, or may have been made on
>>>originally miscalibrated equipment to begin with.
>>
>>So you're endorsing the idea of jacking up the high end based on the tones
>>on the tape that were (hopefully) laid down when tracks were first recorded?
>>Obviously the HF tones would also lose level as well. That, of course, would
>>require you to recalibrate the Playback EQ with each tape. A bit of work,
>>but OK.
>
>
> Right, that's standard procedure in the mastering room these days. It's
> an extra five minutes at the beginning of each tape (although a lot of folks
> will just put tones down at the beginning of each project, so you may have
> to set things up every three or four reels).

This was standard operating procedure in most any room with a tape deck
back when we called them tape decks instead of "analog" tape decks<G>.
It was one of many steps that seem lately to have been relabeled as
work-arounds.

Analog storage of audio has shortcomings, digital storage of audio is,
for the most part, without shortcomings... that is, whatever you put in
is what comes out.

The catch is that conversion between analog and digital, and back again
is not without shortcomings.

So, pick your favorite shortcomings, and record. And take the
shortcomings into account<G>...

[Scott Dorsey]

In article <znr1069190753k@trad>, Mike Rivers > wrote:
>In article > writes:
>
>> This is why I want to start building BK-11's again. Anybody got $100,000
>> they can lend me?
>
>Wes Dooley said he robbed his daughter's college fund to build his
>first R44. If you don't have a daughter who might not go to college,
>maybe you can borrow Wes'. <g>

No way, because Wes wants to build a BK-11 too.
--scott

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

[Nathan Eldred]

(Scott Dorsey) wrote:


> No way, because Wes wants to build a BK-11 too.
> --scott

Please, tell me that's true Scott.

Nathan Eldred
http://www.atlasproaudio.com

[Kurt Albershardt]

Mike Rivers wrote:
>
> Royer concurs. I'll bet that their stereo configuration has a
> symmetrical pattern, but I've never checked it out.



littledog wrote:
>
>> PS Other than for polarity correctness, then front or back of a ribbon
>> should be identical, no ?
>
>
> No, that is not correct. Go to the Royer website, and you will see a
> discussion of exactly how different the front and back are, and some
> suggested applications for taking advantage of that difference.




You'll also find their demo CD, with several tracks featuring an SF-12
(symmetrical stereo Blumlein ribbon) doing a rather nice job on drum
overheads (or out frontheads as the case may be.) The last part of
track 8--with an R-121 on kick (out front, angled 45º down to the floor)
plus the SF-12--basically nailed the sound of a real drum kit in a real
room for me.

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Analog storage of audio has shortcomings, digital storage of audio is,
> for the most part, without shortcomings... that is, whatever you put in
> is what comes out.

Until you can no longer find anything in which to put it. Then nothing
comes out.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Ty Ford]

In Article >,
(Garthrr) wrote:
>In article >, (Ty
>Ford) writes:
>
>>>
>>>Not with the Royer. The front allows higher SPL to be recorded but sounds
>>>darker than the back side.
>>
>>
>>Um, I think this may not be quite right. The back side has more HF response.
>>It is NOT darker. (see my previous post)
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Ty Ford
>
>Ty read the sentence again. I said that the front was darker, not the back. See
>MY previous post. <g>


You are correct sir!

Ty

**Until the worm goes away, I have put "not" in front of my email address.
Please remove it if you want to email me directly.
For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

[Scott Dorsey]

Nathan Eldred > wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>> No way, because Wes wants to build a BK-11 too.
>
>Please, tell me that's true Scott.

It's true, but it's also one of the more difficult ribbons to make. I don't
think it's on his high priority list at all.

I think he went with the 44 originally because it is comparatively easy to
manufacture and it sells for a lot of money. The BK-11 is a lot harder to
make and there's not as much demand for it. I think he could get demand for
it when people discover how great a mike it is, but he doesn't have a big
multinational behind him.

But call him and ask. He's a good guy and he loves to talk about mikes.
--scott

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

[Stephen Sank]

Actually, I did talk to Wes about the BK-11, which he & my dad had
considered making instead of the 44 clone. Wes chose the 44 as he thought
it would be easier to market. At the time I talked to him, he had abandoned
any plans for a BK-11 clone, and he's now selling as many R84's as he can
make, so I don't think he will change that decision.

--
Stephen Sank, Owner & Ribbon Mic Restorer
Talking Dog Transducer Company
http://stephensank.com
5517 Carmelita Drive N.E.
Albuquerque, New Mexico [87111]
505-332-0336
Auth. Nakamichi & McIntosh servicer
Payments preferred through Paypal.com
"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Nathan Eldred > wrote:
> (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> >
> >> No way, because Wes wants to build a BK-11 too.
> >
> >Please, tell me that's true Scott.
>
> It's true, but it's also one of the more difficult ribbons to make. I
don't
> think it's on his high priority list at all.
>
> I think he went with the 44 originally because it is comparatively easy to
> manufacture and it sells for a lot of money. The BK-11 is a lot harder to
> make and there's not as much demand for it. I think he could get demand
for
> it when people discover how great a mike it is, but he doesn't have a big
> multinational behind him.
>
> But call him and ask. He's a good guy and he loves to talk about mikes.
> --scott
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Bill Thompson]

Mike Rivers wrote:

> In article > writes:
>
>
>>Analog storage of audio has shortcomings, digital storage of audio is,
>>for the most part, without shortcomings... that is, whatever you put in
>>is what comes out.
>
>
> Until you can no longer find anything in which to put it. Then nothing
> comes out.

Which is probably the oddest of the "challenges" digital audio faces...
if I can find, with very little effort, playback devices for all the
narrow multi-track formats, heck, even 8-Track cartridges, why is it
that all these digital formats have so much trouble sticking around?

There are companies that specialize in data recovery, they have the old
Kennedy 9 track tape drives, probably Quarter Inch Cartridge Drives (I
even have one of those... and yes, attached to a Linux box I can use it
to read my ancient SCO and SunOS3 tapes<G>! But that's about it... if
you tried to read an old tape archive made on a PC you could well be out
of luck.

Here's one thought... as the technology matures, the developers continue
to find better ways to do things, including storing data. OK, fair
enough... but, because a lot of these developers never tried to play
back a tape made 50 years ago, the concept of backwards compatability,
at least for recovery, never enters their minds.

And here's another... I can still work on my tape decks and I can still
get parts for them, granted some specialized parts may be more difficult
to find than a 68 ohm 1/4 watt resistor... but if a CD burner or reader
dies it goes into the trash. I can't fix them... wouldn't even try,
without serious documentation, and probably a logic analyzer.

I could be completely wrong on these things... but I agree 100% that the
chance of finding a working drive, and functional drivers for a CD
reader could get really slim really quickly.

[Mike Rivers]

I don't know how we got this far off the original topic, but

In article > writes:

> Here's one thought... as the technology matures, the developers continue
> to find better ways to do things, including storing data. OK, fair
> enough... but, because a lot of these developers never tried to play
> back a tape made 50 years ago, the concept of backwards compatability,
> at least for recovery, never enters their minds.

I suspect that audio may be the first thing ever put on a computer
with exception of text that doesn't go out of date. You can't run a
lot of those old PC/XT programs under Windows XP without a lot of
fooling around, and I don't even know if a modern BIOS supports 360K
5-1/4" floppy drives any more.

> And here's another... I can still work on my tape decks and I can still
> get parts for them, granted some specialized parts may be more difficult
> to find than a 68 ohm 1/4 watt resistor... but if a CD burner or reader
> dies it goes into the trash. I can't fix them... wouldn't even try,
> without serious documentation, and probably a logic analyzer.

Yup, and after a while, just about all of them wind up in the trash
and then there ain't no more.

> I could be completely wrong on these things... but I agree 100% that the
> chance of finding a working drive, and functional drivers for a CD
> reader could get really slim really quickly.

I've been argued with about that for years. Good think I'm still
losing.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo