Re: Acoustic Guitar Microphone Poll

[Arny Krueger]

"Bill Wilson" > wrote in message

> Could you please list your favourite microphones, in order of
> preference, for recording steel string acoustic guitars in these two
> scenarios? Feel free to add your corresponding preamp choices, too.
> Thanks.
>
> Bill
>
> 1. Small room with acoustic treatment.
>
> 2. Perfect concert hall with no acoustic problems.

From the lower end of the price spectrum - MXL 603

[JoVee]

in article , ScotFraser at
wrote on 8/8/04 1:44 AM:

> << Could you please list your favourite microphones, in order of
> preference, for recording steel string acoustic guitars in these two
> scenarios?
>
> 1. Small room with acoustic treatment.>>
>
> Pair of Neumann KM84s.
>
> <<2. Perfect concert hall with no acoustic problems. >>
>
> Pair of Neumann KM84s.
>
> BTW, when somebody locates this perfect concert hall with no acoustic
> problems,
> please let me know.

I read that and assumed a few things:
good hall
(anything on stage got to the audience pretty honestly and with some
good sense of space)

good reenforcement capability
(sound system that was designed NOT to be loud or noticed when in
operation...unless it was shut off... with no stage monitors)

The act in question FIT that venue (Green Day not an option)

They exist.
They're not THAt rare.
They're a joy to run with an artist that Gets It.

[JoVee]

in article , Jay Levitt at
wrote on 8/8/04 10:06 AM:

> I really like the TLM103 with my Taylors. Of course, the Taylors are
> already bright, and so is the TLM103, so some might find this overly so,
> but it really captured the sparkle.

WHEW!!!! that saounds DANGEROUS....

[Sundogaudio]

Had good luck with Soundroom MK-012's into Trident S20
HTH Jer @ sundog audio, chicago

[Paul Stamler]

"Bill Wilson" > wrote in message
...
> Could you please list your favourite microphones, in order of
> preference, for recording steel string acoustic guitars in these two
> scenarios? Feel free to add your corresponding preamp choices, too.
> Thanks.
>
> Bill
>
> 1. Small room with acoustic treatment.
>
> 2. Perfect concert hall with no acoustic problems.

Option 2 does not exist anywhere on the planet. But there are some pretty
nice halls anyway. It's not often that I'll record an acoustic guitar in
one, though.

I also don't have an exact order of preference, since different guitars like
different mikes. In talking about this, I won't limit myself to microphones
I actually own.

For Martins and guitars based on their design, I very much like the
Microtech Gefell M930, the Neumann U-87 and the Sennheiser MKH40, sometimes
also the AKG C451 (the original, not the reissue, which isn't). For Gibsons
and smaller-bodied Larrivees and Taylors, I like the Neumann KM-84 and,
sometimes, the unassuming Oktava MC012 (yes, really). The Oktava is
sometimes useful for certain (smaller) Santa Cruz models, too; so is the
M930. For Guild jumbos, which have a sound all their own, I sometimes wind
up using the Shure SM81; the M930 sometimes works, but sometimes the
crispier sound of the SM81 is more appropriate. On most of these
non-Martinesque guitars, perhaps excepting the Guilds, the MKH40 would
probably do very nicely, but I haven't had the chance to try it out on them.

On any one guitar, of course, you need to listen and find the microphone
that's actually right, but those are the ones I reach for first.

Peace,
Paul

[Ted Spencer]

A couple that haven't been mentioned yet are the Lawson L47MP and (believe it
or not) the Rode NT-1.

The Lawson is really amazingly good in its midrange and doesn't have excess top
end or boominess. I usually put it about 10" from the 14the fret, aiming at the
soundhole, with the pattern knob set to a bit on the omni side of cardioid
(about 10:30-11 o'clock). Combined with a Neve 1073 it's possibly the best agt
mic/pre/eq chain I've ever tried.

The very affordable but much-maligned NT-1 (I have a pair) have also been
surprisingly good, although I've heard here that they vary greatly in
consistency. My pair are quite well matched, fortunately. I often use one as
the other half of the stereo pair with the Lawson as described above, but they
work well as a pair themselves as well. They're pretty sparkly, which can be
nice, and are a bit bass shy which is usually a good thing on agt when it's
miked fairly close.

Otherwise I'd agree with the others re: KM84s, 451s and SM81s. I haven't tried
the Schoeps yet though. For some reason I rarely find them in the NYC studios I
frequent.


Ted Spencer, NYC

"No amount of classical training will ever teach you what's so cool about
"Tighten Up" by Archie Bell And The Drells" -author unknown

[Garth]

In article >,
(Bill Wilson) writes:

>Could you please list your favourite microphones, in order of
>preference, for recording steel string acoustic guitars in these two
>scenarios? Feel free to add your corresponding preamp choices, too.
>Thanks.
>
>Bill
>
>1. Small room with acoustic treatment.

Well, I feel qualified to answer *that* part of the Q. (As far as perfect
concert halls, I dunno but I suspect that the following would still apply.) In
my little acoustically questionable room my goto mic is a Schoeps 641 and
usually into a Grace 201 or a Great River pre because of their transparency.
But I could easily make-do with an Oktava MC 012 or even an AKG 460. Have also
had good luck with a TLM 103 and KSM 32.

Garth~


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

[Roger W. Norman]

I have, and with Charlie Byrd, no less. The 170 was like sitting 3 feet
away from Charlie throughout the venue. Beautifully rendered recording of
his guitar from 2 feet away with a fairly narrow configuration (it's an
infinitely variable pattern mic). I've also used the 170 on sax and it was
superb.

See, Ty, I have used Neumanns and I know what they sound like.

--
-----------

Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio


"JoVee" > wrote in message
...
> in article , Bill Wilson at
> wrote on 8/8/04 12:29 AM:
>
> > Could you please list your favourite microphones, in order of
> > preference, for recording steel string acoustic guitars in these two
> > scenarios? Feel free to add your corresponding preamp choices, too.
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Bill
> >
> > 1. Small room with acoustic treatment.
> >
> > 2. Perfect concert hall with no acoustic problems.
>
> km 84 or any good omni
>
> I'd like to try the 'honest' strain of Neuman LD's (170, 193) in card to
see
> how they work at a couple feet but haven't had the pleasure yet.
>

[chetatkinsdiet]

Since I've never recorded in "2", the answer to "1" would be a Royer
121. Into an API pre.....lovely on a Gibson.
later,
m

[Audy]

Bill:
Really depends on the kind of music (pop, country, rock?), rhythm or
lead but in general...

> 1. Small room with acoustic treatment.

Neumann KM54, AKG C12, Schoeps CMC 641 if you have them. If not, KM84
or AKG 451. If the player plays with his fingers and uses the fleshy
part of the tip more than his nail, it can get dull and a 451 or even
KM184 (extra bright) helps cut through. If he's strumming or using a
pick, the KM54 is hard to beat.

AT 4051a is a real sleeper as it's not as well known but does a great
job too.

>
> 2. Perfect concert hall with no acoustic problems.

I'd use the same mics here too...


Audy O



(Bill Wilson) wrote in message >...
> Could you please list your favourite microphones, in order of
> preference, for recording steel string acoustic guitars in these two
> scenarios? Feel free to add your corresponding preamp choices, too.
> Thanks.
>
> Bill
>

[J.W.]

On 11 Aug 2004 16:05:59 -0700, (Audy) wrote:

>Bill:
>Really depends on the kind of music (pop, country, rock?), rhythm or
>lead but in general...
>
>> 1. Small room with acoustic treatment.
>
>Neumann KM54, AKG C12, Schoeps CMC 641 if you have them. If not, KM84
>or AKG 451. If the player plays with his fingers and uses the fleshy
>part of the tip more than his nail, it can get dull and a 451 or even
>KM184 (extra bright) helps cut through. If he's strumming or using a
>pick, the KM54 is hard to beat.

Kind of funny to see a KM184 as "extra bright" because I thought it
was noticeably mellower than AT4041. That means the AT4041 would tear
everyone's heads off. It's all relative I guess.

[Chris Seifert]

I have great success with using a stereo pair of blue dragonfly mics
on several
acoustic guitars. I also have enjoy doing m/s with a pair of 414's.
Seems the 414's get flamed alot
around here but I've gotten some gorgeous sounds with them.

In order of preference though I would probably rank,
Km84's
dragonfly (flies)
beyer mc834 (a real sleeper mic imho)
pair of 414's.

Mostly though, the guitar and player are going to be a biggest part of
the "how good will it sound equation". Unfortuneatly they arent' as
easily swapped with a trip to the mic locker.

Chris
wavetrap




(Bill Wilson) wrote in message >...
> Could you please list your favourite microphones, in order of
> preference, for recording steel string acoustic guitars in these two
> scenarios? Feel free to add your corresponding preamp choices, too.
> Thanks.
>
> Bill
>
> 1. Small room with acoustic treatment.
>
> 2. Perfect concert hall with no acoustic problems.

[Audy]

J.W.

I never used a 4041 although I know it works great on some
vocalists...I was recommending the 4051a. AT makes so many mics with
such close model numbers it's easy to confuse them.

Audy O


>
> Kind of funny to see a KM184 as "extra bright" because I thought it
> was noticeably mellower than AT4041. That means the AT4041 would tear
> everyone's heads off. It's all relative I guess.

[George]

In article >,
(Audy) wrote:

> J.W.
>
> I never used a 4041 although I know it works great on some
> vocalists...I was recommending the 4051a. AT makes so many mics with
> such close model numbers it's easy to confuse them.
>
> Audy O
>
>
lol AKG and thier 40 "diffrent " 414's drive me nuts
G

[Roger W. Norman]

"J.W." > wrote in message
...
> Kind of funny to see a KM184 as "extra bright" because I thought it
> was noticeably mellower than AT4041. That means the AT4041 would tear
> everyone's heads off. It's all relative I guess.

In comparison to a KM84, the KM184 is bright. It's not bright compared to a
C414 of certain vintage. I find the transformerless 414s a little bright,
but it's tameable and usable for overheards quite readily. I haven't tried
the new offerings of the 414, but the EQ review was pretty interesting. Not
interesting enough to make me rush out and buy one, but enough to actually
put it back on my list again.

I didn't see any notice of beyer or other ribbons for this application,
although I could certainly see them being included on a list of mics to try.

I did find, on the list of inexpensive mics, that the MXL 990s did a great
job in vertical coincident XY on a fingerpicked steel string acoustic.
Transformerless, and it was prominent on the high end, but not overly
bright. The nice thing is the pair was matched pretty well and still only
cost $130.

And I see I was wrong. A Royer was mentioned, which, if the money is
available, would be a nice addition to a mic closet because it's so
versatile.

--
-----------

Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio



> On 11 Aug 2004 16:05:59 -0700, (Audy) wrote:
>
> >Bill:
> >Really depends on the kind of music (pop, country, rock?), rhythm or
> >lead but in general...
> >
> >> 1. Small room with acoustic treatment.
> >
> >Neumann KM54, AKG C12, Schoeps CMC 641 if you have them. If not, KM84
> >or AKG 451. If the player plays with his fingers and uses the fleshy
> >part of the tip more than his nail, it can get dull and a 451 or even
> >KM184 (extra bright) helps cut through. If he's strumming or using a
> >pick, the KM54 is hard to beat.
>

[Scott Dorsey]

Audy > wrote:
>
>I never used a 4041 although I know it works great on some
>vocalists...I was recommending the 4051a. AT makes so many mics with
>such close model numbers it's easy to confuse them.

The top end on the 4051a and 4053 are much, much cleaner than on the 4041.
They still aren't as clean as the Schoeps, of course.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Ty Ford]

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 19:17:24 -0400, J.W. wrote
(in article >):

> On 11 Aug 2004 16:05:59 -0700, (Audy) wrote:
>
>> Bill:
>> Really depends on the kind of music (pop, country, rock?), rhythm or
>> lead but in general...
>>
>>> 1. Small room with acoustic treatment.
>>
>> Neumann KM54, AKG C12, Schoeps CMC 641 if you have them. If not, KM84
>> or AKG 451. If the player plays with his fingers and uses the fleshy
>> part of the tip more than his nail, it can get dull and a 451 or even
>> KM184 (extra bright) helps cut through. If he's strumming or using a
>> pick, the KM54 is hard to beat.
>
> Kind of funny to see a KM184 as "extra bright" because I thought it
> was noticeably mellower than AT4041. That means the AT4041 would tear
> everyone's heads off. It's all relative I guess.

the 184 is very bright.

Regards,

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at http://home.comcast.net/~tyreeford

[Geetar Dave]

(Bill Wilson) wrote in message >...
> Could you please list your favourite microphones, in order of
> preference, for recording steel string acoustic guitars in these two
> scenarios? Feel free to add your corresponding preamp choices, too.
> Thanks.
>
> Bill
>
> 1. Small room with acoustic treatment.
>
> 2. Perfect concert hall with no acoustic problems.

1. B.L.U.E. Dragonfly

2. I have never worked as an engineer in such a place.

[Bob Cain]

Roger W. Norman wrote:

> What is 'it'? Why take it off group? Why, Ty? You want to say something
> that everybody can't see?

You bet he does. I don't recommend the experience.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

[Bob Cain]

Roger W. Norman wrote:

> What is 'it'? Why take it off group? Why, Ty? You want to say something
> that everybody can't see?

You bet he does. I don't recommend the experience.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

[Mike Rivers]

In article > playonATcomcast.net writes:

> People really seem to like KM84s on RAP. I sold my pair of KM84s
> after buying a pair of Schoeps, & I don't understand why people like
> the KM84s so much

Because if you bought them when they were new, they were a lot cheaper
than anything available from Schoeps then and now. But if you're
looking for a used one today, you might as well go with something new
for about the same price.

> the low end on them sounds mushy and indistinct to
> me. The Neumanns have kind of a nice smooth sound to them but are not
> very accurate IMO.

I've never had a problem with the low end that couldn't be fixed by
putting them in the right place. (which, admittedly, is sometimes
back in the closet)


--
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 > playonATcomcast.net writes:

> People really seem to like KM84s on RAP. I sold my pair of KM84s
> after buying a pair of Schoeps, & I don't understand why people like
> the KM84s so much

Because if you bought them when they were new, they were a lot cheaper
than anything available from Schoeps then and now. But if you're
looking for a used one today, you might as well go with something new
for about the same price.

> the low end on them sounds mushy and indistinct to
> me. The Neumanns have kind of a nice smooth sound to them but are not
> very accurate IMO.

I've never had a problem with the low end that couldn't be fixed by
putting them in the right place. (which, admittedly, is sometimes
back in the closet)


--
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

[Roger W. Norman]

> I've never had a problem with the low end that couldn't be fixed by
> putting them in the right place. (which, admittedly, is sometimes
> back in the closet)

Now that's cute! <g> Sometimes it takes a wise man to realize that a mic
that SHOULD work doesn't and then do something else. A lesson for all of
us.

--
-----------

Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio


"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
news:znr1092349515k@trad...
>
> In article >
playonATcomcast.net writes:
>
> > People really seem to like KM84s on RAP. I sold my pair of KM84s
> > after buying a pair of Schoeps, & I don't understand why people like
> > the KM84s so much
>
> Because if you bought them when they were new, they were a lot cheaper
> than anything available from Schoeps then and now. But if you're
> looking for a used one today, you might as well go with something new
> for about the same price.
>
> > the low end on them sounds mushy and indistinct to
> > me. The Neumanns have kind of a nice smooth sound to them but are not
> > very accurate IMO.
>
>
>
> --
> 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

[Roger W. Norman]

> I've never had a problem with the low end that couldn't be fixed by
> putting them in the right place. (which, admittedly, is sometimes
> back in the closet)

Now that's cute! <g> Sometimes it takes a wise man to realize that a mic
that SHOULD work doesn't and then do something else. A lesson for all of
us.

--
-----------

Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio


"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
news:znr1092349515k@trad...
>
> In article >
playonATcomcast.net writes:
>
> > People really seem to like KM84s on RAP. I sold my pair of KM84s
> > after buying a pair of Schoeps, & I don't understand why people like
> > the KM84s so much
>
> Because if you bought them when they were new, they were a lot cheaper
> than anything available from Schoeps then and now. But if you're
> looking for a used one today, you might as well go with something new
> for about the same price.
>
> > the low end on them sounds mushy and indistinct to
> > me. The Neumanns have kind of a nice smooth sound to them but are not
> > very accurate IMO.
>
>
>
> --
> 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

[Bob Cain]

Ty Ford wrote:

> Again you disappoint me and clutter the group with your personal
> perspectives. I sent you and email. You want to discuss it. I will not
> discuss this on group, and neither should you.

I suggested it in respnse to you privately and I'll state it
in public. Ty, you have some serious control issues.

Live and let live. Let it go. Kill entire threads in which
you have no interest with a single keystroke. Live better
through technology. There is no conceivable reason you
would be reading them to the depth you do to then just make
people wrong about taking part in them. Why are you taking
part in them?


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

[Bob Cain]

Ty Ford wrote:

> Again you disappoint me and clutter the group with your personal
> perspectives. I sent you and email. You want to discuss it. I will not
> discuss this on group, and neither should you.

I suggested it in respnse to you privately and I'll state it
in public. Ty, you have some serious control issues.

Live and let live. Let it go. Kill entire threads in which
you have no interest with a single keystroke. Live better
through technology. There is no conceivable reason you
would be reading them to the depth you do to then just make
people wrong about taking part in them. Why are you taking
part in them?


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

[Garth]

In article >, Bob Cain >
writes:

> Ty, you have some serious control issues.

Having gone around with Ty on this same topic in the past I have to say that I
agree with Bob here. While off topic threads may be somewhat annoying, its not
*that* big a deal. RAP is a commuinity of people joined primarily to talk about
audio but, because we are a commuinity, there will naturally be discussions of
other things. If someone were to post excusively O.T. then I would say they
should stop but thats not the case here.

Garth~


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

[Garth]

In article >, Bob Cain >
writes:

> Ty, you have some serious control issues.

Having gone around with Ty on this same topic in the past I have to say that I
agree with Bob here. While off topic threads may be somewhat annoying, its not
*that* big a deal. RAP is a commuinity of people joined primarily to talk about
audio but, because we are a commuinity, there will naturally be discussions of
other things. If someone were to post excusively O.T. then I would say they
should stop but thats not the case here.

Garth~


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

[Timothy Lawler]

"playonATcomcast.net" > wrote in message
...
> Lighten up...
>

Ty and Roger, please consider easing up a little on each other. I've been a
daily RAP reader since '97 and include you in my short list of those whose
posts I always read because of your good judgement and ability to articulate
it. Ty, I auditioned and bought my cmc641's inspired by your comments.
Roger, I formed much of my audio concepts by studying your posts on numerous
subjects, which stand out for their maturity and ability to make plain -
even welcoming - what otherwise isn't. Hell, you both do that.

Tim

http://timothylawler.com

[Timothy Lawler]

"playonATcomcast.net" > wrote in message
...
> Lighten up...
>

Ty and Roger, please consider easing up a little on each other. I've been a
daily RAP reader since '97 and include you in my short list of those whose
posts I always read because of your good judgement and ability to articulate
it. Ty, I auditioned and bought my cmc641's inspired by your comments.
Roger, I formed much of my audio concepts by studying your posts on numerous
subjects, which stand out for their maturity and ability to make plain -
even welcoming - what otherwise isn't. Hell, you both do that.

Tim

http://timothylawler.com

[Ty Ford]

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 20:25:09 -0400, Timothy Lawler wrote
(in article et>):

>
> "playonATcomcast.net" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Lighten up...
>>
>
> Ty and Roger, please consider easing up a little on each other. I've been a
> daily RAP reader since '97 and include you in my short list of those whose
> posts I always read because of your good judgement and ability to articulate
> it. Ty, I auditioned and bought my cmc641's inspired by your comments.
> Roger, I formed much of my audio concepts by studying your posts on numerous
> subjects, which stand out for their maturity and ability to make plain -
> even welcoming - what otherwise isn't. Hell, you both do that.
>
> Tim
>
> http://timothylawler.com
>
>

In case it isn't obvious, I'm trying to get Roger and anyone else (Cough..Bob
Cain..cough) included to understand that this news group isn't an invitation
to post anything you want to.

I emailed Bob Cain directly. Apparently he's happier making comments on a
newsgroup than he is communicating about a serious issue person to person.

(For the umpteenth time) I'm ****ed at both of them and about half a dozen
others who disregard the rules of the group. It's not any more complicated
than that.

There's enough crap in my life. I came to and have been a continuing member
of this very special micro society because there was little if any crap.
Their political and religious posts are big time crap and I'm calling them on
it.

And while I think about it Tim, if you're "playon", you're at least as guilty
as they are.

The prosoundweb.com forum has a Saloon in their REP forum for BSing about
politics, religion, left-handed soldering guns and anything you want to talk
about. We don't have that here. maybe we should, but we don't. You wanna
yammer on about politics and religoin...please...take it over there.

Please don't make me explain the basics any more.

SIncerely,

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at http://home.comcast.net/~tyreeford

[Scott Dorsey]

playonATcomcast.net <playonATcomcast.net> wrote:
>My name isn't Tim. I respect you Ty, but I think that usenet rules
>allow off-topic posts as long as the subject header is preceeded by
>"OT" to mark it as such. It is very simple for you either not read OT
>posts, or to use a newsreader that allows you to killfile by
>subject/thread or by author. So it is easy for you to avoid these
>things if you really want to. If you want to try to control behavior
>on usenet you are fighting a losing battle & just asking for
>frustration, what's the point?

Actually, the OT: thing is pretty strongly deprecated in some groups.
It's pretty new and hasn't shown up in the Emily Postnews article yet,
though.

>I enjoy talking about politics on RAP occasionally because I respect
>the intelligence of most of the regulars here and I like to see what
>they have to say about the issues raised.

I don't, really, but I understand that right now people are very much on
edge about things and that they are going to talk about it whether or
not it's appropriate. God knows I have wasted a lot of billable time in
meetings and sessions listening to people debating the war. I have not
seen folks so polarized in decades.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Ty Ford]

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 16:48:49 -0400, playonATcomcast.net wrote
(in article >):

> My name isn't Tim. I respect you Ty, but I think that usenet rules
> allow off-topic posts as long as the subject header is preceeded by
> "OT" to mark it as such. It is very simple for you either not read OT
> posts, or to use a newsreader that allows you to killfile by
> subject/thread or by author. So it is easy for you to avoid these
> things if you really want to. If you want to try to control behavior
> on usenet you are fighting a losing battle & just asking for
> frustration, what's the point?

Al. (and thanks for clearing that up) the point is that the charter (which I
have posted many times) for rec.audio.pro DOESN'T allow OT posts.

Apart form the fact that it's a very good rule, avoiding the posts as you
suggest is like letting your dog poop on the path and expecting others to
simply step over the ****. It's common courtesy.

There are plenty of places including simple email and other newsgroups where
posting about whatever you want is quite acceptable.

Bob Cain accused me of having "control issues" about this. Actually, the
problem is that he and others have Lack Of Control issues. He is pretty much
in denial about the whole thing and gets his feelings hurt when he has direct
email contact with someone who objects to his behavior, BTW. The denial is
that great.

I hope you understand that this newsgroup (and others) do have rules. The
amount of OT political posting over the last two months has been quite
intolerable. If it were vauguely interesting, maybe. Unfortunately it's
mostly just BS from people who think having a computer and internet
connection ENTITLES them to poop anywhere they wish.

Clear things up? Hope so.

Now back to AUDIO. What's the neatest thing you lust for?

Regards,

Ty Ford






> I enjoy talking about politics on RAP occasionally because I respect
> the intelligence of most of the regulars here and I like to see what
> they have to say about the issues raised.
>
> Al
>
> On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 17:48:41 -0400, Ty Ford >
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 20:25:09 -0400, Timothy Lawler wrote
>> (in article et>):
>>
>>>
>>> "playonATcomcast.net" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Lighten up...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ty and Roger, please consider easing up a little on each other. I've been a
>>> daily RAP reader since '97 and include you in my short list of those whose
>>> posts I always read because of your good judgement and ability to
>>> articulate
>>> it. Ty, I auditioned and bought my cmc641's inspired by your comments.
>>> Roger, I formed much of my audio concepts by studying your posts on
>>> numerous
>>> subjects, which stand out for their maturity and ability to make plain -
>>> even welcoming - what otherwise isn't. Hell, you both do that.
>>>
>>> Tim
>>>
>>> http://timothylawler.com
>>>
>>>
>>
>> In case it isn't obvious, I'm trying to get Roger and anyone else
>> (Cough..Bob
>> Cain..cough) included to understand that this news group isn't an
>> invitation
>> to post anything you want to.
>>
>> I emailed Bob Cain directly. Apparently he's happier making comments on a
>> newsgroup than he is communicating about a serious issue person to person.
>>
>> (For the umpteenth time) I'm ****ed at both of them and about half a dozen
>> others who disregard the rules of the group. It's not any more complicated
>> than that.
>>
>> There's enough crap in my life. I came to and have been a continuing member
>> of this very special micro society because there was little if any crap.
>> Their political and religious posts are big time crap and I'm calling them
>> on
>> it.
>>
>> And while I think about it Tim, if you're "playon", you're at least as
>> guilty
>> as they are.
>>
>> The prosoundweb.com forum has a Saloon in their REP forum for BSing about
>> politics, religion, left-handed soldering guns and anything you want to
>> talk
>> about. We don't have that here. maybe we should, but we don't. You wanna
>> yammer on about politics and religoin...please...take it over there.
>>
>> Please don't make me explain the basics any more.
>>
>> SIncerely,
>>
>> Ty Ford
>>
>>
>>
>> -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
>> stuff are at http://home.comcast.net/~tyreeford
>



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at http://home.comcast.net/~tyreeford

[agent86]

Ty Ford wrote:

> In case it isn't obvious, I'm trying to get Roger and anyone else
> (Cough..Bob Cain..cough) included to understand that this news group isn't
> an invitation to post anything you want to.


Roger & Bob? It's at least slightly curious that you haven't mentioned
having any issues with Will & Romeo (for example), who are AT LEAST as
guilty as Roger & Bob (as far as OT posting goes), but, interestingly
enough, tend to be on the opposite side of most issues.

Just an honest observation. I hope I'm wrong, but you seem to be a man
with a (rather transparent) agenda.

[agent86]

Ty Ford wrote:

> Al. (and thanks for clearing that up) the point is that the charter (which
> I have posted many times) for rec.audio.pro DOESN'T allow OT posts.

And federal law doesn't allow the smoking of marijuana, even for medical
purposes. Given that the "charter" (Constitution) implies that the USA has
a government "By the People", any law (or rule) that effectively makes
criminals of a majority of the population is on its face a very stupid rule.
>
> Apart form the fact that it's a very good rule,

No, it isn't, for the reason given above.


> avoiding the posts as you
> suggest is like letting your dog poop on the path and expecting others to
> simply step over the ****. It's common courtesy.

And by extrapolation, lesbians shouldn't hold hands in public, for fear of
offending anyone. And if my neighbor thinks drinking alcohol is a sin, I
shouldn't drink a beer in my front yard where he can see me. And homeless
people shouldn't beg on public corners, lest they offend anyone.


> Bob Cain accused me of having "control issues" about this. Actually, the
> problem is that he and others have Lack Of Control issues. He is pretty
> much in denial about the whole thing and gets his feelings hurt when he
> has direct email contact with someone who objects to his behavior,

Most people call unsolicited, bothersome email to be spam. Spam is (IMO) a
MUCH worse offense than OT posting. Unsolicited bothersome PERSONAL
emails, could well be considered harrassment. If you find OT posts more
offensive than personal harrassment, then you really do have control issues.


> I hope you understand that this newsgroup (and others) do have rules. The
> amount of OT political posting over the last two months has been quite
> intolerable. If it were vauguely interesting, maybe. Unfortunately it's
> mostly just BS from people who think having a computer and internet
> connection ENTITLES them to poop anywhere they wish.
>
> Clear things up? Hope so.

And I think I speak for a lot of others when i say I hope you get this
particular stick out of your ass real soon. You've been an asset to this
group (as has Roger). but lately, you've come off as a real ****head.

[Kurt Albershardt]

Ty Ford wrote:
>
> Now back to AUDIO. What's the neatest thing you lust for?

Right now it would have to be Gordon preamps and the Josephson Series Sixes I'm waiting for...

[Bob Cain]

agent86 wrote:

>
> Roger & Bob? It's at least slightly curious that you haven't mentioned
> having any issues with Will & Romeo (for example), who are AT LEAST as
> guilty as Roger & Bob (as far as OT posting goes), but, interestingly
> enough, tend to be on the opposite side of most issues.
>
> Just an honest observation. I hope I'm wrong, but you seem to be a man
> with a (rather transparent) agenda.

I think you've missed the mark here. I think it's because
Roger and I have both told him that we really don't care
what he thinks, it's none of my business unless I choose to
make it so, and to bugger off.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

[Blind Joni]

>Sounds pretty normal. If it were interesting it would leave an unanswered
>>question..and it doesn't.
>
>I dunno, answers can be pretty interesting too.
>

I agree..the ones that are giving new information. I am glad for the recent
lack of arguing..including from myself.


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

[Ty Ford]

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 21:11:20 -0400, agent86 wrote
(in article >):

> Ty Ford wrote:
>
>> Al. (and thanks for clearing that up) the point is that the charter (which
>> I have posted many times) for rec.audio.pro DOESN'T allow OT posts.
>
> And federal law doesn't allow the smoking of marijuana, even for medical
> purposes. Given that the "charter" (Constitution) implies that the USA has
> a government "By the People", any law (or rule) that effectively makes
> criminals of a majority of the population is on its face a very stupid rule.
>>
>> Apart form the fact that it's a very good rule,
>
> No, it isn't, for the reason given above.
>
>
>> avoiding the posts as you
>> suggest is like letting your dog poop on the path and expecting others to
>> simply step over the ****. It's common courtesy.
>
> And by extrapolation, lesbians shouldn't hold hands in public, for fear of
> offending anyone. And if my neighbor thinks drinking alcohol is a sin, I
> shouldn't drink a beer in my front yard where he can see me. And homeless
> people shouldn't beg on public corners, lest they offend anyone.
>
>
>> Bob Cain accused me of having "control issues" about this. Actually, the
>> problem is that he and others have Lack Of Control issues. He is pretty
>> much in denial about the whole thing and gets his feelings hurt when he
>> has direct email contact with someone who objects to his behavior,
>
> Most people call unsolicited, bothersome email to be spam. Spam is (IMO) a
> MUCH worse offense than OT posting. Unsolicited bothersome PERSONAL
> emails, could well be considered harrassment. If you find OT posts more
> offensive than personal harrassment, then you really do have control issues.
>
>
>> I hope you understand that this newsgroup (and others) do have rules. The
>> amount of OT political posting over the last two months has been quite
>> intolerable. If it were vauguely interesting, maybe. Unfortunately it's
>> mostly just BS from people who think having a computer and internet
>> connection ENTITLES them to poop anywhere they wish.
>>
>> Clear things up? Hope so.
>
> And I think I speak for a lot of others when i say I hope you get this
> particular stick out of your ass real soon. You've been an asset to this
> group (as has Roger). but lately, you've come off as a real ****head.

Hey,

If I thought you were serious, I might be offended. Look at the FAQ. Call it
the ****head.

I didn't make the rules.

If you don't like the rules made by the house, go next door.

Ty Ford





-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at http://home.comcast.net/~tyreeford

[Ty Ford]

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 22:09:32 -0400, Kurt Albershardt wrote
(in article >):

> Ty Ford wrote:
>>
>> Now back to AUDIO. What's the neatest thing you lust for?
>
> Right now it would have to be Gordon preamps and the Josephson Series Sixes
> I'm waiting for...

Gordon Preamps? Do tell. I have a Groove Tubes Brick here right now; simple,
solid, not enough gain for ribbons, rather nice sounding.

Regards,

Ty Ford




-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at http://home.comcast.net/~tyreeford

[Ty Ford]

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 23:26:47 -0400, playonATcomcast.net wrote
(in article >):

> On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 19:23:40 -0400, Ty Ford >
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Now back to AUDIO. What's the neatest thing you lust for?
>
> As far as gear, I'm pretty well set at the moment for a little home
> studio, although I could use a faster computer. A slightly larger
> room would be great too...

Ah, if I could only rationalize digging out the basement another 4-6 feet..:)
Regards,

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at http://home.comcast.net/~tyreeford

[Ty Ford]

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 20:46:07 -0400, agent86 wrote
(in article >):

> Ty Ford wrote:
>
>> In case it isn't obvious, I'm trying to get Roger and anyone else
>> (Cough..Bob Cain..cough) included to understand that this news group isn't
>> an invitation to post anything you want to.
>
>
> Roger & Bob? It's at least slightly curious that you haven't mentioned
> having any issues with Will & Romeo (for example), who are AT LEAST as
> guilty as Roger & Bob (as far as OT posting goes), but, interestingly
> enough, tend to be on the opposite side of most issues.
>
> Just an honest observation. I hope I'm wrong, but you seem to be a man
> with a (rather transparent) agenda.
>

In fact, you ARE wrong and more than slightly paranoid. I have talked about
(and to) all of them. Much of the time I have done it OFF GROUP because IT
DOESN'T BELONG ON THE GROUP.

My agenda is anything but transparent. Let me make it clear for you. RAP has
gotten really messy over the last few months. Thin the herd, weed the garden,
pick up you ****ing room, call it what you like. It ain't evolution, it's
entropy. We've lost a lot of very good people in this group who'd rather
leave than make a fuss. I'm not one of those people.

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Any
questions?

Ty Ford


-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at http://home.comcast.net/~tyreeford

[Ty Ford]

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 01:47:50 -0400, Bob Cain wrote
(in article >):

>
>
> agent86 wrote:
>
>>
>> Roger & Bob? It's at least slightly curious that you haven't mentioned
>> having any issues with Will & Romeo (for example), who are AT LEAST as
>> guilty as Roger & Bob (as far as OT posting goes), but, interestingly
>> enough, tend to be on the opposite side of most issues.
>>
>> Just an honest observation. I hope I'm wrong, but you seem to be a man
>> with a (rather transparent) agenda.
>
> I think you've missed the mark here. I think it's because
> Roger and I have both told him that we really don't care
> what he thinks, it's none of my business unless I choose to
> make it so, and to bugger off.
>
>
> Bob
>

Actually Bob,

You never told me to bugger off. You cut off our direct email communication
by filtering me with your email client instead of having an open and honest
discussion.

I have already commented about your lack of control issues, so I won't be
redundant.

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at http://home.comcast.net/~tyreeford

[Kurt Albershardt]

Ty Ford wrote:

> On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 22:09:32 -0400, Kurt Albershardt wrote
> (in article >):
>
>
>> Ty Ford wrote:
>>
>>> Now back to AUDIO. What's the neatest thing you lust for?
>>
>> Right now it would have to be Gordon preamps and the Josephson Series Sixes
>> I'm waiting for...
>
>
> Gordon Preamps? Do tell. I have a Groove Tubes Brick here right now; simple,
> solid, not enough gain for ribbons, rather nice sounding.

Grant is building some very interesting stuff <http://gordonaudio.com/>

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Gordon Preamps? Do tell. I have a Groove Tubes Brick here right now; simple,
> solid, not enough gain for ribbons, rather nice sounding.

Didn't you see the Gordon at the last New York AES show? Really
interesting design, true space-age construction. Small but very
enthusiastic group of fans. I haven't heard much about it since that
show.

What's with preamps that don't have enough gain these days? Is the
noise level on the spec sheet keeping them from building preamps with
70 or 75 dB gain because they think people will think they're too
noisy? Given the combination of a low microphone output and a low
sensitivity digital input (takes lotsa volts to reach full scale),
something's gotta have more gain.


--
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

[Bob Cain]

Ty Ford wrote:


> Actually Bob,
>
> You never told me to bugger off. You cut off our direct email communication
> by filtering me with your email client instead of having an open and honest
> discussion.

When the personal attacks began I simply didn't want to see
any more. My mailbox is by invitation and you lost yours.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

[Aaron J. Grier]

Mike Rivers > wrote:

> Didn't you see the Gordon at the last New York AES show? Really
> interesting design, true space-age construction.

it appears to be a very good design based on the specs, but space-age
construction? I suppose you could argue there are still through-hole
components on the space station. (:

--
Aaron J. Grier | "Not your ordinary poofy goof." |
"someday the industry will have throbbing frontal lobes and will be able
to write provably correct software. also, I want a pony." -- Zach Brown

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> it appears to be a very good design based on the specs, but space-age
> construction? I suppose you could argue there are still through-hole
> components on the space station. (:

The circuit board is made of some fancy stuff, and there are a lot of
custom made capacitors in there. Read the web site. Talk to the
designer. Oh, and listen to the preamp (which I haven't done yet).


--
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]

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 21:19:01 -0400, playonATcomcast.net wrote
(in article >):

> On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 08:12:55 -0400, Ty Ford >
> wrote:
>
>> My agenda is anything but transparent. Let me make it clear for you. RAP
>> has
>> gotten really messy over the last few months. Thin the herd, weed the
>> garden,
>> pick up you ****ing room, call it what you like. It ain't evolution, it's
>> entropy. We've lost a lot of very good people in this group who'd rather
>> leave than make a fuss. I'm not one of those people.
>>
>> If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Any
>> questions?
>>
>
> Well when you get tired of the political stuff, you can always read
> the fascinating doppler threads.

Now that's actually funny

Ty



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at http://home.comcast.net/~tyreeford

[Ty Ford]

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 17:29:07 -0400, Bob Cain wrote
(in article >):

>
>
> Ty Ford wrote:
>
>
>> Actually Bob,
>>
>> You never told me to bugger off. You cut off our direct email communication
>> by filtering me with your email client instead of having an open and honest
>> discussion.
>
> When the personal attacks began I simply didn't want to see
> any more. My mailbox is by invitation and you lost yours.
>
>
> Bob
>

Dear Bob,

Just so folks don't get the wrong idea, I'm sure if there were anything
resembling personal attacks, they were responses to something you said.

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at http://home.comcast.net/~tyreeford

[hank alrich]

Mike Rivers wrote:

> writes:

> > it appears to be a very good design based on the specs, but space-age
> > construction? I suppose you could argue there are still through-hole
> > components on the space station. (:

> The circuit board is made of some fancy stuff, and there are a lot of
> custom made capacitors in there. Read the web site. Talk to the
> designer. Oh, and listen to the preamp (which I haven't done yet).

Listening to the Gordon preamp is highly recommended. Seriously.

--
ha

[hank alrich]

playon wrote:

> Well when you get tired of the political stuff, you can always read
> the fascinating doppler threads.

The fact is that Bush's thinking is so fast that it distorts his verbal
output into near prehensile tailability.

--
ha

[Kurt Albershardt]

Mike Rivers wrote:

> In article > writes:
>
>> it appears to be a very good design based on the specs, but space-age
>> construction? I suppose you could argue there are still through-hole
>> components on the space station. (:
>
> The circuit board is made of some fancy stuff, and there are a lot of
> custom made capacitors in there. Read the web site. Talk to the
> designer.

The preceding were sufficient to pique my curiosity to the point where I ponied up a rather sizeable deposit for the purpose of the following:


> listen(ing) to the preamp (which I haven't done yet).

Upon which I started doing the math on how long it might take to pay for a few channels thereof.

[Roger W. Norman]

> Ah, if I could only rationalize digging out the basement another 4-6
feet..:)
> Regards,
>
> Ty Ford

Shoot, I'd like to dig out my back yard about 20 feet down, form a concrete
bunker about 40X60, and put the dirt back overtop of it. Then I could use
the basement as part of the house again! <g>

--
-----------

Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio


"Ty Ford" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 23:26:47 -0400, playonATcomcast.net wrote
> (in article >):
>
> > On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 19:23:40 -0400, Ty Ford >
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Now back to AUDIO. What's the neatest thing you lust for?
> >
> > As far as gear, I'm pretty well set at the moment for a little home
> > studio, although I could use a faster computer. A slightly larger
> > room would be great too...
>
>
>
>
> -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other
audiocentric
> stuff are at http://home.comcast.net/~tyreeford
>

[Ty Ford]

And therein lies the problem


On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:48:59 -0400, Roger W. Norman wrote
(in article >):

>> Roger,
>>
>> You still have a LOT of make good work to do for the damage you've done,
> but
>> a little contrition goes a long way.
>>
>> Ty Ford
>
> Not my style, Ty. As much as you'd like to think that I'm the ultimate
> culprit on this newsgroup, I don't even rank up there enough to garner a
> position on the top ten number of posters. Considering that Scott is one of
> those top ten, it also says that hijacking the newsgroup is probably a
> little overboard in your representation of the damage I'M DOING.
>
> However, I don't have any 'make good work' to do. Either people choose to
> read my posts or they don't.
>
> And my work, whether it is 'make good work' or not has nothing to do with
> anything because I'm not subject to your definition of my existence on RAP.
> I've been here for years, bud. Not all of those years was my participation
> involved with any political discussions. But just because you say that any
> of those discussions of which I either participated or even precipitated
> negates my years of whatever level of minimal contributions I've offered
> doesn't make it so. If I've helped one person just once, then I've probably
> done more than I expected. Certainly I can't be viewed as important to the
> existence of the group, but I have offered up a lot of work and sometimes
> even some reasonable information on this newsgroup. But I'm sure that if I
> hadn't done 3 years of compilation transfers, someone else would have done
> so. But I DID do them, and that should say something about my commitment in
> the first place. If you wish to denigrate my participation at every chance,
> then feel free to do so. You don't scare me and you don't hurt me, but most
> of all, you don't amuse me.
>
> --
> -----------
>
> Roger W. Norman
> SirMusic Studio
>
>
> "Ty Ford" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 09:15:56 -0400, Roger W. Norman wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> I have, and with Charlie Byrd, no less. The 170 was like sitting 3 feet
>>> away from Charlie throughout the venue. Beautifully rendered recording
> of
>>> his guitar from 2 feet away with a fairly narrow configuration (it's an
>>> infinitely variable pattern mic). I've also used the 170 on sax and it
> was
>>> superb.
>>>
>>> See, Ty, I have used Neumanns and I know what they sound like.
>>>
>>> --
>>> -----------
>>>
>>> Roger W. Norman
>>> SirMusic Studio
>>
>>
>>
>> -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other
> audiocentric
>> stuff are at http://home.comcast.net/~tyreeford
>>
>
>



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at http://home.comcast.net/~tyreeford