What does a really expensive mic do that an inexpensive one doesn't?

[HiC]

Don't misconstrue the reason for my question. I'm not going to
militantly insist that a $100 - $200 mic is every bit as good as a
Neumann, Telefunken etc. but I'm wondering what exactly one of these
elite mics do that a good bargain mic doesn't? I've never used one so
have no hands-on intimate basis of comparison.

Do you feel if you were to set up a recording session in a high-end
pro studio but replace the "good" mic with one like an MXL etc. it
would be immediately and glaringly obvious in that the sound would
clearly be deficient? Going under the assumption that you have the mic
going through a pre that's well suited to it.

When I record a vocal on one of my Marshall MXL's, gotta be honest, to
my ear it sounds really decent. Seems to do a good job of capturing
the sound of my voice. I've had mics that I didn't like - had a Samson
CO1 which I thought just plain sucked - made everything sound harsh
and tinny, but the Marshalls I've tried sound far better - more
pointedly they sound good, the Samson didn't. Also had a CAD E-100
that I didn't have any complaints about on vocals.

What measureable-defineable things do you get out of one of the high-
dollar, highly exalted mics that you don't out of a better-sounding
budget mic? Is it something where you just have to hear them side by
side to really get? Are there any sites that demonstrate a comparison?

[Joseph Ashwood]

"HiC" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Don't misconstrue the reason for my question. I'm not going to
> militantly insist that a $100 - $200 mic is every bit as good as a
> Neumann, Telefunken etc. but I'm wondering what exactly one of these
> elite mics do that a good bargain mic doesn't?

In my view it's the consistency. If you take your MXL and a CD boombox,
playback and record the same thing on two different days, you'll hear marked
differences between the two, this makes splicing basically impossible. Do
the same thing with a Neumann and the two will sound almost identical. Add
to this that the Neumann will provide clearer conversion of a voice, and
will impart that pleasing sound, and it's easy to understand why they start
at several times what a budget microphone costs.

[Romeo Rondeau]

HiC wrote:
> Don't misconstrue the reason for my question. I'm not going to
> militantly insist that a $100 - $200 mic is every bit as good as a
> Neumann, Telefunken etc. but I'm wondering what exactly one of these
> elite mics do that a good bargain mic doesn't? I've never used one so
> have no hands-on intimate basis of comparison.
>
> Do you feel if you were to set up a recording session in a high-end
> pro studio but replace the "good" mic with one like an MXL etc. it
> would be immediately and glaringly obvious in that the sound would
> clearly be deficient? Going under the assumption that you have the mic
> going through a pre that's well suited to it.
>
> When I record a vocal on one of my Marshall MXL's, gotta be honest, to
> my ear it sounds really decent. Seems to do a good job of capturing
> the sound of my voice. I've had mics that I didn't like - had a Samson
> CO1 which I thought just plain sucked - made everything sound harsh
> and tinny, but the Marshalls I've tried sound far better - more
> pointedly they sound good, the Samson didn't. Also had a CAD E-100
> that I didn't have any complaints about on vocals.
>
> What measureable-defineable things do you get out of one of the high-
> dollar, highly exalted mics that you don't out of a better-sounding
> budget mic? Is it something where you just have to hear them side by
> side to really get? Are there any sites that demonstrate a comparison?

Mostly the higher end microphones are sought after either for their
accuracy or their pleasing sound. There are, however lot's of cheaper
mics that will sound good in some applications, but they generally
aren't as versatile because of their quirkiness. Some of the microphone
snobbery comes from people bragging about how much money they spent or
how good their ears are (or how bad yours must be :-) Now that I've said
that, I've never met an acoustic guitar that a U87 didn't sound good on
or a piano that a 414 didn't sound good on. We all have our favorite
mics, some of them are rather expensive, but then again... you get what
you pay for. I find myself jonesing for a Schoeps cmc641, now that I've
heard Ty Fords guitar recorded with it... I'm still on the fence about
his acting, though :-)

[Anahata]

HiC wrote:
>
> Do you feel if you were to set up a recording session in a high-end
> pro studio but replace the "good" mic with one like an MXL etc. it
> would be immediately and glaringly obvious in that the sound would
> clearly be deficient?

What you should really do is try several mics until you're sure you've
got the best sound. There's a statistical probability that an expensive
mic will sound best on a given voice or instrument, but there are
exceptions.

> When I record a vocal on one of my Marshall MXL's, gotta be honest, to
> my ear it sounds really decent.
>... had a Samson CO1 which I thought just plain sucked

No problem then. If you get a chance to try a high end mic on your
voice, you might or might not detect an improvement but you'll learn
something.

> What measureable-defineable things do you get out of one of the high-
> dollar, highly exalted mics that you don't out of a better-sounding
> budget mic?

It's often about the off axis response. A cheap mic may show a flat
frequency response on axis, but a very wonky response at 90 degrees. A
Schoeps CMC641 does that too, but to a far lesser extent. And there's
always a significant amount of sound coming in off axis so it makes a
difference.

But again there's exceptions. Most LD condensers, including highly
valued Neumanns, have an uneven off axis reponse too, and there it seems
to comes down to whether you prefer this coloration or that.

Another generic difference betweeen cheap and expensive mics is
consistency. Buy half a dozen Chinese clones together and they'll all
sound different; buy a KM184 and it'll sound the same as the one you
bought last year.

Anahata

[HKC]

Do you feel if you were to set up a recording session in a high-end
pro studio but replace the "good" mic with one like an MXL etc. it
would be immediately and glaringly obvious in that the sound would
clearly be deficient?

Probably not but if you work everyday with these things you find their
limitations and after a (long) while most people I know end up buying a more
expensive model. Again this may vary from the mid priced Røde, Audio
Technica, SE etc to the high end stuff like Soundelux, Neumann or Lawson.
After that there will be the vintage stuff like old Neumanns, Telefunken
etc, it never ends.
The point is that if it sounds right it is right and very few records become
hits because of the airyness of the vocal.
Personally I have taken the long road from being happy with my live vocal
mic (SM58, probably I don't remember) to a condenser to a more expensive
condenser. After that a tube mic and now I have the Lawson combo along with
preamps from Grace, Drawmer, TLA, Joe Meek etc.
Is it worth the money? To me it is but if you had asked me 20 years ago, no
way. If you can't appreciate the difference don't go there it's to
expensive.

[Raw-Tracks]

Joseph Ashwood wrote:
> In my view it's the consistency. If you take your MXL and a CD boombox,
> playback and record the same thing on two different days, you'll hear marked
> differences between the two, this makes splicing basically impossible. Do
> the same thing with a Neumann and the two will sound almost identical.

Never heard that one before. The same mic sounding different the next
day. I don't think so.

--
Eric

Practice Your Mixing Skills
Download Our Multi-Track Masters
www.Raw-Tracks.com
www.Mad-Host.com

[DeeAa]

"Anahata" > wrote in message
...

> It's often about the off axis response. A cheap mic may show a flat
> frequency response on axis, but a very wonky response at 90 degrees. A
> Schoeps CMC641 does that too, but to a far lesser extent. And there's
> always a significant amount of sound coming in off axis so it makes a
> difference.
>
Yep, for instance the mentioned C01's were terrible in that respect; move
half an inch and it sounds completely different.

Quality mics also handle more pressure with grace, pick up weaker signals
easier, allow for variation in distance from the source etc. etc.

I have a 414B-ULS I use for vox, but my problem isn't the mic quality, it's
the difficulty of isolating outside noises. I may almost get better results
with an SM58 because there's a helluva lot of ambient noise where I record.

[Mike Rivers]

On Mar 29, 1:07 am, "HiC" > wrote:

> What measureable-defineable things do you get out of one of the high-
> dollar, highly exalted mics that you don't out of a better-sounding
> budget mic?

These days, not a lot. Back when people went to studios and paid their
money for recordings, a good collection of high grade mics attracted
clients. You could measure their value in how much money they brought
in. I got more bookings and fewer "OK, thanks" from callers when they
asked what kind of mics I had, and I could rattle off U87s, KM84s,
C414s, C451s . . .

Today where most recording is done in home studios where you can work
as long as you need to get the level of performance you want from the
gear you can afford, you can get by with less expensive, less precise,
and less consistent mics. And since you may only be recording one
thing with any specific mic ("I want a mic for my voice") you can
experiment and find the mic that works best for that application
rather than having a mic that can be counted on to work pretty well in
any reasonable application.

[Joseph Ashwood]

"Raw-Tracks" > wrote in message
et...
> Joseph Ashwood wrote:
>> In my view it's the consistency. If you take your MXL and a CD boombox,
>> playback and record the same thing on two different days, you'll hear
>> marked differences between the two, this makes splicing basically
>> impossible. Do the same thing with a Neumann and the two will sound
>> almost identical.
>
> Never heard that one before. The same mic sounding different the next day.
> I don't think so.

the lower the quality components the more variation in the behavior based on
temperature, humidity, and just about any other variable you can think of.
Not to mention the aging process.
Joe

[Ty Ford]

On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 03:18:38 -0400, Romeo Rondeau wrote
(in article >):

> HiC wrote:
>> Don't misconstrue the reason for my question. I'm not going to
>> militantly insist that a $100 - $200 mic is every bit as good as a
>> Neumann, Telefunken etc. but I'm wondering what exactly one of these
>> elite mics do that a good bargain mic doesn't? I've never used one so
>> have no hands-on intimate basis of comparison.
>>
>> Do you feel if you were to set up a recording session in a high-end
>> pro studio but replace the "good" mic with one like an MXL etc. it
>> would be immediately and glaringly obvious in that the sound would
>> clearly be deficient? Going under the assumption that you have the mic
>> going through a pre that's well suited to it.
>>
>> When I record a vocal on one of my Marshall MXL's, gotta be honest, to
>> my ear it sounds really decent. Seems to do a good job of capturing
>> the sound of my voice. I've had mics that I didn't like - had a Samson
>> CO1 which I thought just plain sucked - made everything sound harsh
>> and tinny, but the Marshalls I've tried sound far better - more
>> pointedly they sound good, the Samson didn't. Also had a CAD E-100
>> that I didn't have any complaints about on vocals.
>>
>> What measureable-defineable things do you get out of one of the high-
>> dollar, highly exalted mics that you don't out of a better-sounding
>> budget mic? Is it something where you just have to hear them side by
>> side to really get? Are there any sites that demonstrate a comparison?
>
> Mostly the higher end microphones are sought after either for their
> accuracy or their pleasing sound. There are, however lot's of cheaper
> mics that will sound good in some applications, but they generally
> aren't as versatile because of their quirkiness. Some of the microphone
> snobbery comes from people bragging about how much money they spent or
> how good their ears are (or how bad yours must be :-) Now that I've said
> that, I've never met an acoustic guitar that a U87 didn't sound good on
> or a piano that a 414 didn't sound good on. We all have our favorite
> mics, some of them are rather expensive, but then again... you get what
> you pay for. I find myself jonesing for a Schoeps cmc641, now that I've
> heard Ty Fords guitar recorded with it... I'm still on the fence about
> his acting, though :-)

The checks cleared. :)

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

[Ty Ford]

On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 05:52:51 -0400, HKC wrote
(in article >):

> Do you feel if you were to set up a recording session in a high-end
> pro studio but replace the "good" mic with one like an MXL etc. it
> would be immediately and glaringly obvious in that the sound would
> clearly be deficient?
>
> Probably not but if you work everyday with these things you find their
> limitations and after a (long) while most people I know end up buying a more
> expensive model. Again this may vary from the mid priced Røde, Audio
> Technica, SE etc to the high end stuff like Soundelux, Neumann or Lawson.
> After that there will be the vintage stuff like old Neumanns, Telefunken
> etc, it never ends.
> The point is that if it sounds right it is right and very few records become
> hits because of the airyness of the vocal.
> Personally I have taken the long road from being happy with my live vocal
> mic (SM58, probably I don't remember) to a condenser to a more expensive
> condenser. After that a tube mic and now I have the Lawson combo along with
> preamps from Grace, Drawmer, TLA, Joe Meek etc.
> Is it worth the money? To me it is but if you had asked me 20 years ago, no
> way. If you can't appreciate the difference don't go there it's to
> expensive.
>
>

I don't think records become hits because of the airyness of the vocals. I
think they become hits because they get "placed" in movies or get promoted
otherwise.

Can we predict the number of sales by how far a knob is turned. Skootch that
one up or down just a bit and gain or lose half a million in sales. Sure if
the knob is the power switch on the console, but theoretically.......


Regards,

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

[Ty Ford]

On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 07:12:57 -0400, Mike Rivers wrote
(in article om>):

> On Mar 29, 1:07 am, "HiC" > wrote:
>
>> What measureable-defineable things do you get out of one of the high-
>> dollar, highly exalted mics that you don't out of a better-sounding
>> budget mic?
>
> These days, not a lot. Back when people went to studios and paid their
> money for recordings, a good collection of high grade mics attracted
> clients. You could measure their value in how much money they brought
> in. I got more bookings and fewer "OK, thanks" from callers when they
> asked what kind of mics I had, and I could rattle off U87s, KM84s,
> C414s, C451s . . .
>
> Today where most recording is done in home studios where you can work
> as long as you need to get the level of performance you want from the
> gear you can afford, you can get by with less expensive, less precise,
> and less consistent mics. And since you may only be recording one
> thing with any specific mic ("I want a mic for my voice") you can
> experiment and find the mic that works best for that application
> rather than having a mic that can be counted on to work pretty well in
> any reasonable application.
>
>

And don't forget. It's the mic AND preamp that determine the sound.

Regards,

Ty

--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

[Scott Dorsey]

HiC > wrote:
>Don't misconstrue the reason for my question. I'm not going to
>militantly insist that a $100 - $200 mic is every bit as good as a
>Neumann, Telefunken etc. but I'm wondering what exactly one of these
>elite mics do that a good bargain mic doesn't? I've never used one so
>have no hands-on intimate basis of comparison.

For the most part, a good mike is the one that has the sound you want.
It's one you can put up, and get that sound without tweaking and having
to set up baffles and move things around and fiddle for hours.

When there is leakage, a good microphone makes the leakage sound good.
A bad microphone makes it sound bad.

>When I record a vocal on one of my Marshall MXL's, gotta be honest, to
>my ear it sounds really decent. Seems to do a good job of capturing
>the sound of my voice. I've had mics that I didn't like - had a Samson
>CO1 which I thought just plain sucked - made everything sound harsh
>and tinny, but the Marshalls I've tried sound far better - more
>pointedly they sound good, the Samson didn't. Also had a CAD E-100
>that I didn't have any complaints about on vocals.

Record someone. Play it back. Close your eyes. Can you honestly believe
that they are standing in front of you, or does it sound like a recording?

When it sounds like the person and not a recording, then you are on the
right track.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
Raw-Tracks > wrote:
>Joseph Ashwood wrote:
>> In my view it's the consistency. If you take your MXL and a CD boombox,
>> playback and record the same thing on two different days, you'll hear marked
>> differences between the two, this makes splicing basically impossible. Do
>> the same thing with a Neumann and the two will sound almost identical.
>
>Never heard that one before. The same mic sounding different the next
>day. I don't think so.

Try ANY of the LD Chinese mikes. For the most part, the pattern control
is so far off that very small positional changes make big sonic differences.
--scott

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

[Andy Eng]

On Mar 29, 12:07 am, "HiC" > wrote:

<snip>

> What measureable-defineable things do you get out of one of the high-
> dollar, highly exalted mics that you don't out of a better-sounding
> budget mic? Is it something where you just have to hear them side by
> side to really get? Are there any sites that demonstrate a comparison?

Q1 - I may get grumpy but won't cry when the performers/audience
knocks over a lesser expensive budget mic when tracking on the
battlefield, er I mean venue. Grant it, "grumpy" is hard to measure
but it's pretty definable :-)

Q-2 Regarding sites that demonstrate a comparison, we've a nice
sounding concert hall down the road at the local community college
where the director lets me sharpen my practice in return for copies of
the finished project. You may have a place nearby where you live.
These are good places to A/B the real sound with what you're
tracking. Recording at noisy bars & clubs aren't as conducive to
learning. Just finished capturing a concert the other night. Great
trombone work. Made a note that it's time to go run down a couple
ribbon mics... !@#$%^&

Just yapping...

Andy

[Romeo Rondeau]

Ty Ford wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 03:18:38 -0400, Romeo Rondeau wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> HiC wrote:
>>> Don't misconstrue the reason for my question. I'm not going to
>>> militantly insist that a $100 - $200 mic is every bit as good as a
>>> Neumann, Telefunken etc. but I'm wondering what exactly one of these
>>> elite mics do that a good bargain mic doesn't? I've never used one so
>>> have no hands-on intimate basis of comparison.
>>>
>>> Do you feel if you were to set up a recording session in a high-end
>>> pro studio but replace the "good" mic with one like an MXL etc. it
>>> would be immediately and glaringly obvious in that the sound would
>>> clearly be deficient? Going under the assumption that you have the mic
>>> going through a pre that's well suited to it.
>>>
>>> When I record a vocal on one of my Marshall MXL's, gotta be honest, to
>>> my ear it sounds really decent. Seems to do a good job of capturing
>>> the sound of my voice. I've had mics that I didn't like - had a Samson
>>> CO1 which I thought just plain sucked - made everything sound harsh
>>> and tinny, but the Marshalls I've tried sound far better - more
>>> pointedly they sound good, the Samson didn't. Also had a CAD E-100
>>> that I didn't have any complaints about on vocals.
>>>
>>> What measureable-defineable things do you get out of one of the high-
>>> dollar, highly exalted mics that you don't out of a better-sounding
>>> budget mic? Is it something where you just have to hear them side by
>>> side to really get? Are there any sites that demonstrate a comparison?
>> Mostly the higher end microphones are sought after either for their
>> accuracy or their pleasing sound. There are, however lot's of cheaper
>> mics that will sound good in some applications, but they generally
>> aren't as versatile because of their quirkiness. Some of the microphone
>> snobbery comes from people bragging about how much money they spent or
>> how good their ears are (or how bad yours must be :-) Now that I've said
>> that, I've never met an acoustic guitar that a U87 didn't sound good on
>> or a piano that a 414 didn't sound good on. We all have our favorite
>> mics, some of them are rather expensive, but then again... you get what
>> you pay for. I find myself jonesing for a Schoeps cmc641, now that I've
>> heard Ty Fords guitar recorded with it... I'm still on the fence about
>> his acting, though :-)
>
> The checks cleared. :)

Point taken :-)

[drichard]

Hi,

I'll offer some of my thoughts...

Consistency and off-axis response add tremendously to the cost of
microphones. You can find a very cheap mic (an MCA SP-1, for example)
that sounds quite good for personal use in a home studio. The caveat
is that you need to be very cognizant of mic placement as you record.

The human voice is not very demanding in terms of frequency response
requirements. You might find a cheap mic that sounds better on *your*
voice than any expensive mic out there.

Also, a quality microphone need not necessarily be expensive. Recently
I "discovered" EV dynamic microphones, and how much difference their
Vari-D technology makes. The off-axis response is great, and there is
very little proximity effect. I bought a couple of RE-11's off Ebay
for around $50, and they are terrific mics. I liked them so much I
bought an RE-20, and that's probably the last vocal mic I'll ever buy
for myself. (Famous last words.) I tend to be a little sibilant, so a
dynamic flatters my voice more than a condenser anyway. But I wouldn't
be embarrassed to use an RE-11 for a critical application.

Dean


On Mar 29, 12:07 am, "HiC" > wrote:
> Don't misconstrue the reason for my question. I'm not going to
> militantly insist that a $100 - $200 mic is every bit as good as a
> Neumann, Telefunken etc. but I'm wondering what exactly one of these
> elite mics do that a good bargain mic doesn't? I've never used one so
> have no hands-on intimate basis of comparison.
>
> Do you feel if you were to set up a recording session in a high-end
> pro studio but replace the "good" mic with one like an MXL etc. it
> would be immediately and glaringly obvious in that the sound would
> clearly be deficient? Going under the assumption that you have the mic
> going through a pre that's well suited to it.
>
> When I record a vocal on one of my Marshall MXL's, gotta be honest, to
> my ear it sounds really decent. Seems to do a good job of capturing
> the sound of my voice. I've had mics that I didn't like - had a Samson
> CO1 which I thought just plain sucked - made everything sound harsh
> and tinny, but the Marshalls I've tried sound far better - more
> pointedly they sound good, the Samson didn't. Also had a CAD E-100
> that I didn't have any complaints about on vocals.
>
> What measureable-defineable things do you get out of one of the high-
> dollar, highly exalted mics that you don't out of a better-sounding
> budget mic? Is it something where you just have to hear them side by
> side to really get? Are there any sites that demonstrate a comparison?

[Haolemon]

On Mar 29, 8:12 am, "drichard" > wrote:
>
> Also, a quality microphone need not necessarily be expensive. Recently
> I "discovered" EV dynamic microphones, and how much difference their
> Vari-D technology makes. The off-axis response is great, and there is
> very little proximity effect. I bought a couple of RE-11's off Ebay
> for around $50, and they are terrific mics. I liked them so much I
> bought an RE-20, and that's probably the last vocal mic I'll ever buy
> for myself. (Famous last words.) I tend to be a little sibilant, so a
> dynamic flatters my voice more than a condenser anyway. But I wouldn't
> be embarrassed to use an RE-11 for a critical application.

The RE15, though out of production, is in my opinion also a very high
quality and versatile mic. Worth seeking out.

[Romeo Rondeau]

> Not to mention the aging process.
> Joe
>
>

Hey! Leave Mike Rivers out of this! :-)

[Steve King]

"Romeo Rondeau" > wrote in message
. net...
>
>> Not to mention the aging process.
>> Joe
>
> Hey! Leave Mike Rivers out of this! :-)

I consider Mike a youngster. Cut him a little slack if you please.

Steve King

[Willie K. Yee, MD[_3_]]

On 28 Mar 2007 22:07:06 -0700, "HiC" > wrote:

>... I'm wondering what exactly one of these
>elite mics do that a good bargain mic doesn't? I've never used one so
>have no hands-on intimate basis of comparison.

One more aspect to consider: While expensive mics age, they do so in a
somewhat predictable fashion. Cheap mics are pretty much guaranteed to
have a shorter life. Some components, e.g. capacitors have a definite
lifespan, and the cheaper, the shorter. So a mic might sound ok today,
but I doubt it will in 40 years. Or even 10.

[hank alrich]

HiC wrote:

> Don't misconstrue the reason for my question. I'm not going to
> militantly insist that a $100 - $200 mic is every bit as good as a
> Neumann, Telefunken etc. but I'm wondering what exactly one of these
> elite mics do that a good bargain mic doesn't? I've never used one so
> have no hands-on intimate basis of comparison.

How is the essence of an auditory experience to be communicated in
words? Folks could talk all day and night about this and you still
wouldn't have a clue unless you'd heard some of what those folks heard
that they're talking about. Go listen to some good mics.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Gerry]

On Mar 30, 1:30 pm, (hank alrich) wrote:
> Go listen to some good mics.
>
> --
> ha
> Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

Maybe book some studio time, take your mics in and record with your
mics and theirs? Alternatively, you might be able to rent some mics
and record in your own environment.

Gerry Nelson

[Scott Dorsey]

Soundhaspriority > wrote:
>"Willie K. Yee, MD" <please@nospam> wrote in message
...
>> On 28 Mar 2007 22:07:06 -0700, "HiC" > wrote:
>>
>>>... I'm wondering what exactly one of these
>>>elite mics do that a good bargain mic doesn't? I've never used one so
>>>have no hands-on intimate basis of comparison.
>>
>> One more aspect to consider: While expensive mics age, they do so in a
>> somewhat predictable fashion. Cheap mics are pretty much guaranteed to
>> have a shorter life. Some components, e.g. capacitors have a definite
>> lifespan, and the cheaper, the shorter. So a mic might sound ok today,
>> but I doubt it will in 40 years. Or even 10.
>>
>The MXL 2003 I dissected has all Wima caps. The boards are beautiful. Your
>prejudice is showing.

Yes, but is the backplate flat, and is the diaphragm evenly tensioned and
perfectly parallel to the backplate? Tensioning is a difficult thing to
do and the trampoline method that all the Chinese manufacturers (other than
BSWA) are using is unreliable at best.

90% of the sound of a mike comes from the capsule and the acoustical design.
If that is not right, spending all the money in the world on electronics
is not helpful.

Also, IF the diaphragm is evenly tensioned.... will it stay that way in
twenty years? Note that AKG, Neumann, and Shure all have elaborate
aging and thermal shock procedures to make sure their capsules stay
good as they age. Some manufacturers do not. I have plenty of old Sony
mikes that have developed ripples over the years, but no AKG or Neumanns.
(Well, other than the U47, which is a special case... Neumann figured out
the PVC doesn't age well, and they stopped using it.)
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

Soundhaspriority > wrote:
>
>Scott, everything you have said about Chinese microphones has been true at
>some point. What you are missing is the incredible rate of evolution of
>their manufacturing culture. It resembles the opening of Japan. When
>Commodore Perry forcibly opened Japan to trade in 1854, he encountered a
>late Bronze Age culture. In 1885, only 31 years later, Japan launched an
>all-steel battleship. These people are not Iraqis. They are incredibly
>clever and collaborative.

This is true, however these folks are still missing a couple very important
key manufacturing techniques. They will almost certainly discover them for
themselves sooner or later, but the old line manufacturers are working very
hard to avoid releasing them.

Also, you have to realize the folks don't really _care_ about longterm
aging, because for the most part they are concerned with short term profits
at the expense of everything else. (Not that many of the old line folks
are any better in that regard.)

>To wit, I tell you another story. In 1951, a distant family member was
>reading the Sunday NY Times classified. He read a little two line ad:
>"Japanese camera manufacturer seeks U.S. distributor." Because of the
>prejudice similar to that of pro audio guys, he was the only guy who
>answered the ad. He got the job. You want to know the name of the company?
>
>NIKON

Oh, I have expectations that sooner or later the Chinese are going to
start making high grade microphones. But I don't think it will happen
until the market demands high-grade microphones. As long as there is
a huge market for crap, most manufacturers in any country will continue
making crap.
--scott

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

[Mike Rivers]

On Mar 30, 12:16 pm, "Soundhaspriority" > wrote:
> 99% of the
> market is bad musicians, playing exactly ONE INSTRUMENT, recording
> themselves for their own entertainment.

Correction: That portion of the market plays ALL THE INSTRUMENTS and
has plans to make some lunch money selling downloads on line. I
suspect that it's more like 85% - there are some conscientious people
out there who have been "eneabled" by good $500 mics instead of having
to spend $2000.

> IMHO, you and everybody else need to do a reevaluation every year. The basis
> of your logic might drop out like a Florida sinkhole.

Some people have better things to do than keep evaluating cheap mics
hoping to find a particularly good one some year. They have gotten
better, that's for sure, but for every improved model that appears,
there are three to move in to the bottom of the heap at a lower price
than what was there last year. I suppose that's progress, but not very
rapid progress. Given that any mic will last at least 5 years before
it dies or, if it's the best mic you can afford at the time, you'll
outgrow it, maybe every five years is a good time to re-evaluate the
state of the industry.

[Les Cargill]

Soundhaspriority wrote:

> "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Soundhaspriority > wrote:
>>
> [snip]
>
>>Oh, I have expectations that sooner or later the Chinese are going to
>>start making high grade microphones. But I don't think it will happen
>>until the market demands high-grade microphones. As long as there is
>>a huge market for crap, most manufacturers in any country will continue
>>making crap.
>>--scott
>>
>
> Addendum. The market is a major impediment. I've seen comments on various
> forums indicating that users don't even know how to use really good
> microphones, stymied in their attempts to record their guitars. 99% of the
> market is bad musicians, playing exactly ONE INSTRUMENT, recording
> themselves for their own entertainment. This is a healthy pasttime, but it
> fuels a marketplace for users who are both bad musicians and bad recording
> artists. Products are literally engineered with defects to help them
> succeed, to wit, the "guitar mike" with "anti boom" and HF edge
> complimentary to the twang.
>

But that is not really a recording thing - that is a method of
practicing the instrument. A mightily effective one, too. Most
of the self-recordists I know of either get frustrated and
quit, or they get better ( at playing the instrument ).

Some just write lousy and entertaining songs. Those are really
the most fun, or at least were on the alt.music.4-track comps,
because they were not to be taken very seriously.

But I digress...

> Economics has Gresham's law: "Bad money drives out good." Here, bad
> musicians and bad music drive out good equipment. But there is a positive
> sign. After the Chinese importers saturated the Guitar Centers with
> efficiently manufactured junk for that market segment, they had to find
> another segment for growth. The market for their growth came as music
> production decentralized. There is now a modest market for really good
> equipment at reasonable prices, and the gear is coming along.
>

Gresham's Law is specific to the case where two *currencies* are
in use. If we carefully analyze the demand curve for musical
instruments and recording gear, the only thing that's fundamentally
changed is that high bandwidth digital electronics have made
more and better cheap cruft available. That is a Moore's Law
thing.

> IMHO, you and everybody else need to do a reevaluation every year. The basis
> of your logic might drop out like a Florida sinkhole.
>

I am a home recordist who occasionally drags it all out to
do a live multitrack. I do not depend on any of this for a livelihood,
so I don't need high reliability or extreme levels of quality. I'm
the guy this stuff is targetted at, but it would be foolish of
me to think that the cheap stuff is ready for battle conditions.

Some guys "need" a simple offroad vehicle, but professionals
might just need a tank. ORV prices seem to drop, but tank
prices don't. These are two seperate markets.

> Bob Morein
> Dresher, PA
> (215) 646-4894
>
>
>
--
Les Cargill

[drichard]

Hi Scott,

You're extremely knowledgeable, and I put a lot of stock in what you
say. But I am having a hard time understanding why, if these mics are
so poorly tensioned, so many people still think some of them sound
good. I'm not saying this to be negative or flippant in any way, I'm
simply wondering what you hear that I don't.

People whose ears I trust have recommended some of the cheapo mics as
being quite acceptable. I hope Hank Alrich doesn't mind me mentioning
his experiences with the MCA SP-1, or that Harvey Gerst spoke highly
of the MXL mics a couple of years ago. And while I was never fond of
the MXL mics I had and sold, I find the AT2020 (obviously Chinese) and
the MCA SP-1 mics very acceptable.

What will one hear when trying out mics that exhibit these tensioning
problems? What am I not hearing?

Dean



On Mar 30, 9:43 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> Soundhaspriority > wrote:
> >"Willie K. Yee, MD" <please@nospam> wrote in message
> ...
> >> On 28 Mar 2007 22:07:06 -0700, "HiC" > wrote:
>
> >>>... I'm wondering what exactly one of these
> >>>elite mics do that a good bargain mic doesn't? I've never used one so
> >>>have no hands-on intimate basis of comparison.
>
> >> One more aspect to consider: While expensive mics age, they do so in a
> >> somewhat predictable fashion. Cheap mics are pretty much guaranteed to
> >> have a shorter life. Some components, e.g. capacitors have a definite
> >> lifespan, and the cheaper, the shorter. So a mic might sound ok today,
> >> but I doubt it will in 40 years. Or even 10.
>
> >The MXL 2003 I dissected has all Wima caps. The boards are beautiful. Your
> >prejudice is showing.
>
> Yes, but is the backplate flat, and is the diaphragm evenly tensioned and
> perfectly parallel to the backplate? Tensioning is a difficult thing to
> do and the trampoline method that all the Chinese manufacturers (other than
> BSWA) are using is unreliable at best.
>
> 90% of the sound of a mike comes from the capsule and the acoustical design.
> If that is not right, spending all the money in the world on electronics
> is not helpful.
>
> Also, IF the diaphragm is evenly tensioned.... will it stay that way in
> twenty years? Note that AKG, Neumann, and Shure all have elaborate
> aging and thermal shock procedures to make sure their capsules stay
> good as they age. Some manufacturers do not. I have plenty of old Sony
> mikes that have developed ripples over the years, but no AKG or Neumanns.
> (Well, other than the U47, which is a special case... Neumann figured out
> the PVC doesn't age well, and they stopped using it.)
> --scott
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Scott Dorsey]

drichard > wrote:
>
>You're extremely knowledgeable, and I put a lot of stock in what you
>say. But I am having a hard time understanding why, if these mics are
>so poorly tensioned, so many people still think some of them sound
>good. I'm not saying this to be negative or flippant in any way, I'm
>simply wondering what you hear that I don't.

If you don't hear it, don't worry about it.

>What will one hear when trying out mics that exhibit these tensioning
>problems? What am I not hearing?

That depends on the mike. They will all be different, and they will all
have pattern issues more than anything else.

For a really good time, put the mike in figure-8 mode and see how good
the null is. If there's a multipattern large diaphragm mike that doesn't
do a figure-8, it's usually for a good reason, too.

But again, I have some Sony mikes that I got in the seventies, which were
just fine back then... but thirty years later, they have visible bulges
and the response is all over the place. AKG mikes I got at the same time
aged a lot better. Has Sony got their capsule aging procedures improved
since then? I don't know, but I know that what most of the Chinese plants
are using today looks a lot like what Sony used in the seventies.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Richard Crowley]

"drichard" wrote ...
> ... But I am having a hard time understanding why, if these mics are
> so poorly tensioned, so many people still think some of them sound
> good. I'm not saying this to be negative or flippant in any way, I'm
> simply wondering what you hear that I don't.

But haven't you effectively answered your own question?
If the cheap Chinese LDC mics are so variable, it seems
inevitable that SOME of them will actually sound good.
Maybe not forever, but at some magic point in time & space.

[Edi Zubovic]

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 12:36:56 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
> wrote:

>"drichard" wrote ...
>> ... But I am having a hard time understanding why, if these mics are
>> so poorly tensioned, so many people still think some of them sound
>> good. I'm not saying this to be negative or flippant in any way, I'm
>> simply wondering what you hear that I don't.
>
>But haven't you effectively answered your own question?
>If the cheap Chinese LDC mics are so variable, it seems
>inevitable that SOME of them will actually sound good.
>Maybe not forever, but at some magic point in time & space.
>
-- I have seen some promotional materials of a nowadays
well-established Chinese manufacturer (I'll try to remain fair and
won't name them), where a close-up of their capsule rims showed so
many smashed heads of cheap Phillips screws, that I was stunned. --
No, this is not the way of tensioning the membrane. The staff seems
even not to care about proper screwdriver head fit and angle... and I
wish if they used an electric vertical lever-action screwdriver with
preset torque moments and rotating grip stand for capsules _and_ for
God's sake, the screws of a proper precision for the purpose... but at
the time being, no: it seems that they have most young, basically
skilled folks with basic tools only.

Here, a nice machined housing doesn't help at all.


Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia

[Paul Stamler]

It's kind of like cheap guitars: once in a while, one will sound really
nice. But the next one off the assembly line is likely to sound like crap.

That said, there's another issue besides predictability: harshness. Not all,
but *most* of the cheap condenser mics I've heard are harsh-sounding in one
way or another. Sometimes it's obvious on first listen, sometimes it takes a
while to sink in. Most expensive microphones (again, with exceptions) aren't
harsh. They may be bright (many too bright for my tastes), but they don't
have that harsh edge to them. There's often more detail, but it's not ugly
and grating the way it can be with cheap mics.

I don't know whether the harshness comes from the diaphragm problems Scott
is talking about, bad electronic design or crappy transformers, but it's
almost always there in cheap condensers, almost never in expensive mics.

As is often the case, some of this isn't what expensive mics do, but what
they don't do.

Peace,
Paul

[Edi Zubovic]

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:40:19 -0400, "Soundhaspriority"
> wrote:

>
>"Edi Zubovic" <edi.zubovic[rem > wrote in message
---------------------8<----------------------
>> -- I have seen some promotional materials of a nowadays
>> well-established Chinese manufacturer (I'll try to remain fair and
>> won't name them),
>
>You're not being fair. You should name them. By not doing so, you could be
>slandering all the Chinese makers who do it right. And this group is for us,
>not for them.
All right... sE. Do hope, they will get better in this respect.

>Do the right thing for your comrades-in-arms. To make it easier, I'll start:
Comrades-in-what?!
>I took apart two MXL603s mikes. The caps were cheap ceramics. With one of
>the mikes, unscrewing the capsule was almost impossible, because the
>stainless steel mesh covering the back vents, which had merely been glued in
>place, had dislodged and jammed the threads. These 603s mikes (my sample)
>are crappy mikes!
>
>I took apart a couple MXL2003 mikes, and found the opposite. A high quality
>mike, with no smashed screw heads, beautiful boards, and Wima caps.
>
>Now, please, tell us what you saw.
Hopefully, a right move.
>Bob Morein
>Dresher, PA
>(215) 646-4894
>

Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia

[Scott Dorsey]

Paul Stamler > wrote:
>
>I don't know whether the harshness comes from the diaphragm problems Scott
>is talking about, bad electronic design or crappy transformers, but it's
>almost always there in cheap condensers, almost never in expensive mics.

All of the three. And SOMETIMES it's designed into the mikes in an attempt
to make them sound better, by people who don't know what good mikes sound
like, who are selling to people who don't know what good mikes sound like.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Edi Zubovic]

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 17:29:55 -0400, "Soundhaspriority"
> wrote:

>
>"Edi Zubovic" <edi.zubovic[rem > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:40:19 -0400, "Soundhaspriority"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Edi Zubovic" <edi.zubovic[rem > wrote in message
>> ---------------------8<----------------------
>>>> -- I have seen some promotional materials of a nowadays
>>>> well-established Chinese manufacturer (I'll try to remain fair and
>>>> won't name them),
>>>
>>>You're not being fair. You should name them. By not doing so, you could be
>>>slandering all the Chinese makers who do it right. And this group is for
>>>us,
>>>not for them.
>> All right... sE. Do hope, they will get better in this respect.
>>
>
>Thanks. "sE" I don't know them. Can you point me to a website?
>
>Bob Morein
>Dresher, PA
>(215) 646-4894
>
Here you are ...

http://www.seelectronics.com/whatsnew.html

As for me, I'll think I'll try out their Reflexion Filter and I may
purchase some of their 3-meter microphone booms. Only I'd have to make
appropriate counterweights. Not a problem, though.
They should have these things in black or dark grey -- TV folks don't
like it that shiny and black is always better as it doesn't attract
attention so much as shiny chrome or alike at live events.

Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia

[Jay Kadis]

In article >,
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

> Paul Stamler > wrote:
> >
> >I don't know whether the harshness comes from the diaphragm problems Scott
> >is talking about, bad electronic design or crappy transformers, but it's
> >almost always there in cheap condensers, almost never in expensive mics.
>
> All of the three. And SOMETIMES it's designed into the mikes in an attempt
> to make them sound better, by people who don't know what good mikes sound
> like, who are selling to people who don't know what good mikes sound like.
> --scott

And the tendency slang to make into the dictionary if enough people use
it sets a troubling precedent.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x

[Scott Dorsey]

Soundhaspriority > wrote:
>"Edi Zubovic" <edi.zubovic[rem > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:40:19 -0400, "Soundhaspriority"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Edi Zubovic" <edi.zubovic[rem > wrote in message
>> ---------------------8<----------------------
>>>> -- I have seen some promotional materials of a nowadays
>>>> well-established Chinese manufacturer (I'll try to remain fair and
>>>> won't name them),
>>>
>>>You're not being fair. You should name them. By not doing so, you could be
>>>slandering all the Chinese makers who do it right. And this group is for
>>>us,
>>>not for them.
>> All right... sE. Do hope, they will get better in this respect.
>>
>
>Thanks. "sE" I don't know them. Can you point me to a website?

seelectronics.com. They are probably the biggest of the independently-owned
Shanghai facilities, basically a joint operation between US, Chinese, and UK
companies. For various reasons I can't talk about their products.
--scott

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

[Don Pearce]

On 30 Mar 2007 17:22:05 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Paul Stamler > wrote:
>>
>>I don't know whether the harshness comes from the diaphragm problems Scott
>>is talking about, bad electronic design or crappy transformers, but it's
>>almost always there in cheap condensers, almost never in expensive mics.
>
>All of the three. And SOMETIMES it's designed into the mikes in an attempt
>to make them sound better, by people who don't know what good mikes sound
>like, who are selling to people who don't know what good mikes sound like.
>--scott

This may be of interest here. It is a summary of a comparison I did in
cooperation with Ty. The object of the exercise was to make a Rode
NT1-A sound like a Neumann TLM103 using nothing more than eq. The
exercise worked exceedingly well, and I now have a Rode-to-Neumann eq
curve available in my DAW for use any time.

http://81.174.169.10/odds/microphones/rode_to_neumann.htm

There are response graphs and things to listen to (actually it is Ty
counting).

Admittedly the Rode isn't a cheap Chinese mic, but a cheap Australian
one (the capsule is Aussie, not Chinese), but the principle applies.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Romeo Rondeau]

Jay Kadis wrote:
> In article >,
> (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>> Paul Stamler > wrote:
>>> I don't know whether the harshness comes from the diaphragm problems Scott
>>> is talking about, bad electronic design or crappy transformers, but it's
>>> almost always there in cheap condensers, almost never in expensive mics.
>> All of the three. And SOMETIMES it's designed into the mikes in an attempt
>> to make them sound better, by people who don't know what good mikes sound
>> like, who are selling to people who don't know what good mikes sound like.
>> --scott
>
> And the tendency slang to make into the dictionary if enough people use
> it sets a troubling precedent.

Language evolves.

[Ty Ford]

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:23:57 -0400, Soundhaspriority wrote
(in article >):

> I was specifically addressing WK Yee's point. Your concerns are valid. But I
> would suggest that you look at:
> http://pages.prodigy.net/jforgione/FT_Mic1.html It suggests that, as of 2003

> (and we should now allow for the possibility of further improvement in 4
> years), the MXL2003 closely approximates the TLM103. Very slightly greater
> irregularities in the lower midrange do suggest that the diaphragm is not
> tensioned with the quite the same isotropic precision. But at the same time
> the results do not indicate that the tensioning method is significantly
> worse. Also note that, at this time, many of these mike makers have acquired

> modern testing equipment, and do age their diaphragms.

Nice overview on that page, but put all the techno discourse out you want,
"approximates" is a hole you can drive a VERY large gang of Harley bikers
through.

The bottom line is, if you can't hear the difference, buy the Marshall. If
you can, buy the Neumann. Through a Mackie mixer, you're not likely to hear
much difference. With a better preamp, you will.

I have two tlm 103. As the info on the page seems to say, the price
difference between them and the Marshall is justified.

Regards,

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

[Ty Ford]

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 13:14:04 -0400, Soundhaspriority wrote
(in article >):

>
> "Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> On Mar 30, 12:16 pm, "Soundhaspriority" > wrote:
>>> 99% of the
>>> market is bad musicians, playing exactly ONE INSTRUMENT, recording
>>> themselves for their own entertainment.
>>
>> Correction: That portion of the market plays ALL THE INSTRUMENTS and
>> has plans to make some lunch money selling downloads on line. I
>> suspect that it's more like 85% - there are some conscientious people
>> out there who have been "eneabled" by good $500 mics instead of having
>> to spend $2000.
>
> I'll stick with 99%. 99% garage bands and would-be crooners. And the 99%
> instrument in the crappy low end is the guitar. It is a fine instrument, but
> it has crowded out other instruments like crab grass.
>
>>
>>> IMHO, you and everybody else need to do a reevaluation every year. The
>>> basis
>>> of your logic might drop out like a Florida sinkhole.
>>
>> Some people have better things to do than keep evaluating cheap mics
>> hoping to find a particularly good one some year.
>
> I misspoke by using the phrase "everybody else". I know of only a very few
> individuals who have been sufficiently motivated, and have the technical
> skill, to do this kind of analysis. Most of rest of the people who claim to
> know are talking out of their asses. They think experience makes them God's
> last word on equipment choice. This is why the human race has so many
> minor-league dictators.
>
> My point is particularly relevant to Scott, because he was the pioneer in
> dissecting these mikes, analyzing their faults, and devising do-it-yourself
> methods to make them better. I don't know anyone else in this field, who
> approaches his work, except possibly Ty Ford and Harvey Gerst, and they have
> not been as analytical.
>
> Bob Morein
> Dresher, PA
> (215) 646-4894

Analyze this! :)

MCA SP1 (thank you Hank)

Audix SCX-1 (thank you Eric)

Mics to watch.

Regards,

Ty Ford

PS: "When asked what time it is, explaining how to make a watch is not the
answer."

--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

[hank alrich]

Soundhaspriority > wrote:

> Different, yes. Better, I don't see it in the graph. Not a bit.

Must be something amazing to have such ears that can hear a graph.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Don Pearce]

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 11:00:01 -0400, "Soundhaspriority"
> wrote:

>
>"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
>> On 30 Mar 2007 17:22:05 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>
>>>Paul Stamler > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>I don't know whether the harshness comes from the diaphragm problems
>>>>Scott
>>>>is talking about, bad electronic design or crappy transformers, but it's
>>>>almost always there in cheap condensers, almost never in expensive mics.
>>>
>>>All of the three. And SOMETIMES it's designed into the mikes in an
>>>attempt
>>>to make them sound better, by people who don't know what good mikes sound
>>>like, who are selling to people who don't know what good mikes sound like.
>>>--scott
>>
>> This may be of interest here. It is a summary of a comparison I did in
>> cooperation with Ty. The object of the exercise was to make a Rode
>> NT1-A sound like a Neumann TLM103 using nothing more than eq. The
>> exercise worked exceedingly well, and I now have a Rode-to-Neumann eq
>> curve available in my DAW for use any time.
>>
>> http://81.174.169.10/odds/microphones/rode_to_neumann.htm
>>
>I doubt curve would hold up under a wider range of material. The NT1A has an
>edge terminated capsule, while the TLM103 has a center terminated capsule.
>An undergraduate physics exercise in some textbook calculates the modes of
>each. The center terminated capsule has less offensive low frequency modes,
>because the maximum unsupported span is less.
>
>I don't think it's possible to transform one caspule type into the other
>with any reasonable computable filter.
>

So what I did is impossible? Interesting theory.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Don Pearce]

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 18:29:38 -0400, "Soundhaspriority"
> wrote:

>
>"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 11:00:01 -0400, "Soundhaspriority"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On 30 Mar 2007 17:22:05 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Paul Stamler > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I don't know whether the harshness comes from the diaphragm problems
>>>>>>Scott
>>>>>>is talking about, bad electronic design or crappy transformers, but
>>>>>>it's
>>>>>>almost always there in cheap condensers, almost never in expensive
>>>>>>mics.
>>>>>
>>>>>All of the three. And SOMETIMES it's designed into the mikes in an
>>>>>attempt
>>>>>to make them sound better, by people who don't know what good mikes
>>>>>sound
>>>>>like, who are selling to people who don't know what good mikes sound
>>>>>like.
>>>>>--scott
>>>>
>>>> This may be of interest here. It is a summary of a comparison I did in
>>>> cooperation with Ty. The object of the exercise was to make a Rode
>>>> NT1-A sound like a Neumann TLM103 using nothing more than eq. The
>>>> exercise worked exceedingly well, and I now have a Rode-to-Neumann eq
>>>> curve available in my DAW for use any time.
>>>>
>>>> http://81.174.169.10/odds/microphones/rode_to_neumann.htm
>>>>
>>>I doubt curve would hold up under a wider range of material. The NT1A has
>>>an
>>>edge terminated capsule, while the TLM103 has a center terminated capsule.
>>>An undergraduate physics exercise in some textbook calculates the modes of
>>>each. The center terminated capsule has less offensive low frequency
>>>modes,
>>>because the maximum unsupported span is less.
>>>
>>>I don't think it's possible to transform one caspule type into the other
>>>with any reasonable computable filter.
>>>
>>
>> So what I did is impossible? Interesting theory.
>>
>> d
>>
>The modes are too complicated, and the axial response is different for each
>angle. It is impossible to do. But it is well known that our ears can be
>fooled, and I don't doubt you did it for certain material. For other
>material, you would have to redo your filter.
>
I don't know about that. The human voice is by far the most severe
test you can impose on any piece of audio gear. As for modes, there is
no reason for them to be important at low frequencies - you have that
backwards. At low frequencies you will only excite the fundamental
mode of vibration, which is in any case sufficiently well damped that
there will be no chance of movement other than the whole diaphragm
following the wave. At high frequencies, yes the Neumann diaphragm is
effectively smaller in terms of vibrating aperture, but the dead spot
in the centre will actually create greater unevenness in off-axis
response then letting the whole diaphragm move - a bit like comb
filtering from two speaker drivers as opposed to the smooth response
of one larger driver.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Arny Krueger]

"Soundhaspriority" > wrote in message


> I doubt curve would hold up under a wider range of
> material.

Why?

> The NT1A has an edge terminated capsule, while
> the TLM103 has a center terminated capsule. An
> undergraduate physics exercise in some textbook
> calculates the modes of each. The center terminated
> capsule has less offensive low frequency modes, because
> the maximum unsupported span is less.

Vibrational modes can vary, but the variations affect frequency response.

If a center termination was categorically superior, then would Neumann make
any LD mics with edge termination?

I don't think so.

Visit these links and observe:

http://www.neumann.com/?lang=en&id=current_microphones&cid=tlm170_description

http://www.neumann.com/?lang=en&id=current_microphones&cid=tlm193_description

http://www.neumann.com/?lang=en&id=current_microphones&cid=u89_description

[Arny Krueger]

"Soundhaspriority" > wrote in message


> I took apart two MXL603s mikes. The caps were cheap
> ceramics.

Ceramics are just fine for bypassing. I analyzed the traces on a pair of
603s I had at home, and all of the ceramic caps were connected to ground at
one end.

> With one of the mikes, unscrewing the capsule
> was almost impossible, because the stainless steel mesh
> covering the back vents, which had merely been glued in
> place, had dislodged and jammed the threads. These 603s
> mikes (my sample) are crappy mikes!

No problems with my pair. The threaded parts came apart and went together
smoothly.

I think we're seeing one of early answers - one of the things you get with
expensive mics is more consistency.

[drichard]

Hi Bob,

First off, I'm answering this based entirely on intuition, rather than
science. But I suspect that, technically, you're correct. A person
can't make an NT1a into a Neumann TLM103 simply with EQ.

But that might simply being pedantic, and I think Don's point is very
well taken. With the sound files he used, he was able to generate an
extremely convincing duplication of the sound of the TLM103. After
all, they're both large diaphragm condensers with similar dynamic
response, and they're both very quiet mics. And so, I'm thinking that
for a single point source at a close distance, the simulation using
simply EQ might be good enough to fool almost anyone that's not using
test equipment in a laboratory. Certainly the simlulation is close
enough to be useful. Again, not a scientific opinion, but that's what
my intuition tells me after hearing what Don did with those sound
files.

On this topic of cheap mics, for me the bottom line is that we want to
record music with these microphones, not do lab tests. If the person
doing the recording thinks a cheap mic sounds good on a particular
source, then it *is* good. And I'm one of those people who thinks that
sometimes the cheap mics sound just fine.

Dean



On Mar 31, 4:29 pm, "Soundhaspriority" > wrote:
> "Don Pearce" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 11:00:01 -0400, "Soundhaspriority"
> > > wrote:
>
> >>"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>> On 30 Mar 2007 17:22:05 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
> >>>>Paul Stamler > wrote:
>
> >>>>>I don't know whether the harshness comes from the diaphragm problems
> >>>>>Scott
> >>>>>is talking about, bad electronic design or crappy transformers, but
> >>>>>it's
> >>>>>almost always there in cheap condensers, almost never in expensive
> >>>>>mics.
>
> >>>>All of the three. And SOMETIMES it's designed into the mikes in an
> >>>>attempt
> >>>>to make them sound better, by people who don't know what good mikes
> >>>>sound
> >>>>like, who are selling to people who don't know what good mikes sound
> >>>>like.
> >>>>--scott
>
> >>> This may be of interest here. It is a summary of a comparison I did in
> >>> cooperation with Ty. The object of the exercise was to make a Rode
> >>> NT1-A sound like a Neumann TLM103 using nothing more than eq. The
> >>> exercise worked exceedingly well, and I now have a Rode-to-Neumann eq
> >>> curve available in my DAW for use any time.
>
> >>>http://81.174.169.10/odds/microphones/rode_to_neumann.htm
>
> >>I doubt curve would hold up under a wider range of material. The NT1A has
> >>an
> >>edge terminated capsule, while the TLM103 has a center terminated capsule.
> >>An undergraduate physics exercise in some textbook calculates the modes of
> >>each. The center terminated capsule has less offensive low frequency
> >>modes,
> >>because the maximum unsupported span is less.
>
> >>I don't think it's possible to transform one caspule type into the other
> >>with any reasonable computable filter.
>
> > So what I did is impossible? Interesting theory.
>
> > d
>
> The modes are too complicated, and the axial response is different for each
> angle. It is impossible to do. But it is well known that our ears can be
> fooled, and I don't doubt you did it for certain material. For other
> material, you would have to redo your filter.
>
> Bob Morein
> Dresher, PA
> (215) 646-4894- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[hank alrich]

Soundhaspriority > wrote:

> But it is well known that our ears can be fooled

Even by listening to graphs.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Bob Olhsson]

HiC wrote:
>... I'm wondering what exactly one of these
> elite mics do that a good bargain mic doesn't?

Good mikes simply get the job done faster by not drawing attention to
themselves. Bargain mikes often have much greater problems with
sibilance, popping, sounding muddy at a distance and with things never
really sitting right in a mix.
--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!
615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com

[david correia]

In article >,
(Don Pearce) wrote:

> The human voice is by far the most severe
> test you can impose on any piece of audio gear.



My fave way to check out a mic pre is with a grand piano.





David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com

[Don Pearce]

On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 15:59:40 +1000, Soundhaspriority
> wrote:

>
>"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 11:00:01 -0400, "Soundhaspriority"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Don Pearce" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 30 Mar 2007 17:22:05 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Paul Stamler > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know whether the harshness comes from the diaphragm problems
>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>> is talking about, bad electronic design or crappy transformers, but it's
>>>>>> almost always there in cheap condensers, almost never in expensive mics.
>>>>>
>>>>> All of the three. And SOMETIMES it's designed into the mikes in an
>>>>> attempt
>>>>> to make them sound better, by people who don't know what good mikes sound
>>>>> like, who are selling to people who don't know what good mikes sound like.
>>>>> --scott
>>>>
>>>> This may be of interest here. It is a summary of a comparison I did in
>>>> cooperation with Ty. The object of the exercise was to make a Rode
>>>> NT1-A sound like a Neumann TLM103 using nothing more than eq. The
>>>> exercise worked exceedingly well, and I now have a Rode-to-Neumann eq
>>>> curve available in my DAW for use any time.
>>>>
>>>> http://81.174.169.10/odds/microphones/rode_to_neumann.htm
>>>>
>>> I doubt curve would hold up under a wider range of material. The NT1A has an
>>> edge terminated capsule, while the TLM103 has a center terminated capsule.
>>> An undergraduate physics exercise in some textbook calculates the modes of
>>> each. The center terminated capsule has less offensive low frequency modes,
>>> because the maximum unsupported span is less.
>>>
>>> I don't think it's possible to transform one caspule type into the other
>>> with any reasonable computable filter.
>>>
>>
>> So what I did is impossible? Interesting theory.
>>
>
>Theoretically it isn't impossible, but clearly from your background and
>previous experience you don't have the capability to perform this kind of
>experiment correctly. What you're actually doing belongs in the Arnie
>Krueger school of science, which is lightweight and full of easily exposed
>technical errors.
>
>It would take someone with a real scientific background to do such an
>experiment properly. I'm much too busy working on my booming recording
>career to take on another project now, but I'll let you know.
>
Well, thank you for that bit of patronization. That drops you
straight in my kill file.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[hank alrich]

More

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Jim Gilliland]

Don Pearce wrote:

> Well, thank you for that bit of patronization. That drops you
> straight in my kill file.

You don't recognize a forgery/troll when you see one? Admittedly, it's a bit of
a mess to sort out.

[Don Pearce]

On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 07:20:33 -0400, Jim Gilliland
> wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>
>> Well, thank you for that bit of patronization. That drops you
>> straight in my kill file.
>
>You don't recognize a forgery/troll when you see one? Admittedly, it's a bit of
>a mess to sort out.

Didn't look - was that a forgery? Then I apologize to the real one.
Still, it is the forger in my sin bin, so nothing lost.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Ty Ford]

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 13:05:34 -0400, Soundhaspriority wrote
(in article >):

>
> "Ty Ford" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:23:57 -0400, Soundhaspriority wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> I was specifically addressing WK Yee's point. Your concerns are valid.
>>> But I
>>> would suggest that you look at:
>>> http://pages.prodigy.net/jforgione/FT_Mic1.html It suggests that, as of
>>> 2003
>>
>>> (and we should now allow for the possibility of further improvement in 4
>>> years), the MXL2003 closely approximates the TLM103. Very slightly
>>> greater
>>> irregularities in the lower midrange do suggest that the diaphragm is not
>>> tensioned with the quite the same isotropic precision. But at the same
>>> time
>>> the results do not indicate that the tensioning method is significantly
>>> worse. Also note that, at this time, many of these mike makers have
>>> acquired
>>
>>> modern testing equipment, and do age their diaphragms.
>>
>> Nice overview on that page, but put all the techno discourse out you want,
>> "approximates" is a hole you can drive a VERY large gang of Harley bikers
>> through.
>>
>> The bottom line is, if you can't hear the difference, buy the Marshall. If
>> you can, buy the Neumann. Through a Mackie mixer, you're not likely to
>> hear
>> much difference. With a better preamp, you will.
>>
> Different, yes. Better, I don't see it in the graph. Not a bit.
>
>> I have two tlm 103. As the info on the page seems to say, the price
>> difference between them and the Marshall is justified.
>>
> But the measurements don't. I speculate that the author didn't want to get
> too far in front of "conventional wisdom", ie., prejudice.
>
> Supposing the difference is audible, the author acknowledges that the
> extremely thin diaphragm of the 2003 gives it better HF extension than the
> 103. As far as the low end, bypassing the output caps with 1 ufd ceramics
> could very well change that.
>
> Ty, you have a lot of money tied up in the 103, and I sympathize with pain
> if the the 2003 was to upstage it. This is called, "cognitive dissonance".
> It's just like 1951, when people could not stand the idea that the Nikon SP
> rangefinder camera was the equal of the Leica. It turned out that the optics
> were actually better, but people just couldn't get over their prejudice for
> many years.

Bob,

I have no pain associated with the purchase of my mics or preamps. People who
have to look at audio usually as their primary reference usually do so
because they can't hear. I listen first and then look if I need to.

You make it seem as though I'm a lonely orphan with my burdensome TLM 103.
Poor me. Please buy as many 2003 as you budget will allow.

You're calling my disagreement with you prejudice. That gets you really low
marks by the debating society.

Sincerely,

Ty Ford



--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

[Ty Ford]

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 18:10:55 -0400, Don Pearce wrote
(in article >):

> On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 11:00:01 -0400, "Soundhaspriority"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> "Don Pearce" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 30 Mar 2007 17:22:05 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Paul Stamler > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know whether the harshness comes from the diaphragm problems
>>>>> Scott
>>>>> is talking about, bad electronic design or crappy transformers, but it's
>>>>> almost always there in cheap condensers, almost never in expensive mics.
>>>>
>>>> All of the three. And SOMETIMES it's designed into the mikes in an
>>>> attempt
>>>> to make them sound better, by people who don't know what good mikes sound
>>>> like, who are selling to people who don't know what good mikes sound like.
>>>> --scott
>>>
>>> This may be of interest here. It is a summary of a comparison I did in
>>> cooperation with Ty. The object of the exercise was to make a Rode
>>> NT1-A sound like a Neumann TLM103 using nothing more than eq. The
>>> exercise worked exceedingly well, and I now have a Rode-to-Neumann eq
>>> curve available in my DAW for use any time.
>>>
>>> http://81.174.169.10/odds/microphones/rode_to_neumann.htm
>>>
>> I doubt curve would hold up under a wider range of material. The NT1A has
>> an
>> edge terminated capsule, while the TLM103 has a center terminated capsule.
>> An undergraduate physics exercise in some textbook calculates the modes of
>> each. The center terminated capsule has less offensive low frequency modes,
>> because the maximum unsupported span is less.
>>
>> I don't think it's possible to transform one caspule type into the other
>> with any reasonable computable filter.
>>
>
> So what I did is impossible? Interesting theory.
>
> d

No. I did it years ago with V/O only on a U 87 and an RE27ND. The limitations
of one speaking voice, however, prevent extrapolation to a wider range or
sources. Just changing from voice to acoustic guitar makes a really big
difference.

Don, (and others) please try the same thing on the Test 2 files of acoustic
guitar files which I recorded using the NT1-a and the TLM 103 and see what
happens. They are .wav files in the Audio folder in a folder titled TLM
103-NT1-a.

Regards,

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

[Ty Ford]

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 19:27:19 -0400, Don Pearce wrote
(in article >):

> On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 18:29:38 -0400, "Soundhaspriority"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> "Don Pearce" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 11:00:01 -0400, "Soundhaspriority"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Don Pearce" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On 30 Mar 2007 17:22:05 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Paul Stamler > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't know whether the harshness comes from the diaphragm problems
>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>> is talking about, bad electronic design or crappy transformers, but
>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>> almost always there in cheap condensers, almost never in expensive
>>>>>>> mics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All of the three. And SOMETIMES it's designed into the mikes in an
>>>>>> attempt
>>>>>> to make them sound better, by people who don't know what good mikes
>>>>>> sound
>>>>>> like, who are selling to people who don't know what good mikes sound
>>>>>> like.
>>>>>> --scott
>>>>>
>>>>> This may be of interest here. It is a summary of a comparison I did in
>>>>> cooperation with Ty. The object of the exercise was to make a Rode
>>>>> NT1-A sound like a Neumann TLM103 using nothing more than eq. The
>>>>> exercise worked exceedingly well, and I now have a Rode-to-Neumann eq
>>>>> curve available in my DAW for use any time.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://81.174.169.10/odds/microphones/rode_to_neumann.htm
>>>>>
>>>> I doubt curve would hold up under a wider range of material. The NT1A has
>>>> an
>>>> edge terminated capsule, while the TLM103 has a center terminated capsule.
>>>> An undergraduate physics exercise in some textbook calculates the modes of
>>>> each. The center terminated capsule has less offensive low frequency
>>>> modes,
>>>> because the maximum unsupported span is less.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think it's possible to transform one caspule type into the other
>>>> with any reasonable computable filter.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So what I did is impossible? Interesting theory.
>>>
>>> d
>>>
>> The modes are too complicated, and the axial response is different for each
>> angle. It is impossible to do. But it is well known that our ears can be
>> fooled, and I don't doubt you did it for certain material. For other
>> material, you would have to redo your filter.
>>
> I don't know about that. The human voice is by far the most severe
> test you can impose on any piece of audio gear. As for modes, there is
> no reason for them to be important at low frequencies - you have that
> backwards. At low frequencies you will only excite the fundamental
> mode of vibration, which is in any case sufficiently well damped that
> there will be no chance of movement other than the whole diaphragm
> following the wave. At high frequencies, yes the Neumann diaphragm is
> effectively smaller in terms of vibrating aperture, but the dead spot
> in the centre will actually create greater unevenness in off-axis
> response then letting the whole diaphragm move - a bit like comb
> filtering from two speaker drivers as opposed to the smooth response
> of one larger driver.
>
> d
>
>

I do know about that. The extended frequency range of the acoustic guitar
relative to the human voice makes quite a difference.

Regards,

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

[Don Pearce]

On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 10:54:12 -0400, "Soundhaspriority"
> wrote:

>
>"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 07:20:33 -0400, Jim Gilliland
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>Don Pearce wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, thank you for that bit of patronization. That drops you
>>>> straight in my kill file.
>>>
>>>You don't recognize a forgery/troll when you see one? Admittedly, it's a
>>>bit of
>>>a mess to sort out.
>>
>> Didn't look - was that a forgery? Then I apologize to the real one.
>> Still, it is the forger in my sin bin, so nothing lost.
>>
>> d
>>
>Don, it was a forgery. I argue, but I try to argue fair. Please don't take
>anything I say personally.
>
Bob, I now see the difference in the headers.. As Mr. Daltrey said,
"we won't get fooled again".

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Don Pearce]

On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 11:30:23 -0400, Ty Ford >
wrote:

>On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 18:10:55 -0400, Don Pearce wrote
>(in article >):
>
>> On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 11:00:01 -0400, "Soundhaspriority"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Don Pearce" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 30 Mar 2007 17:22:05 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Paul Stamler > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know whether the harshness comes from the diaphragm problems
>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>> is talking about, bad electronic design or crappy transformers, but it's
>>>>>> almost always there in cheap condensers, almost never in expensive mics.
>>>>>
>>>>> All of the three. And SOMETIMES it's designed into the mikes in an
>>>>> attempt
>>>>> to make them sound better, by people who don't know what good mikes sound
>>>>> like, who are selling to people who don't know what good mikes sound like.
>>>>> --scott
>>>>
>>>> This may be of interest here. It is a summary of a comparison I did in
>>>> cooperation with Ty. The object of the exercise was to make a Rode
>>>> NT1-A sound like a Neumann TLM103 using nothing more than eq. The
>>>> exercise worked exceedingly well, and I now have a Rode-to-Neumann eq
>>>> curve available in my DAW for use any time.
>>>>
>>>> http://81.174.169.10/odds/microphones/rode_to_neumann.htm
>>>>
>>> I doubt curve would hold up under a wider range of material. The NT1A has
>>> an
>>> edge terminated capsule, while the TLM103 has a center terminated capsule.
>>> An undergraduate physics exercise in some textbook calculates the modes of
>>> each. The center terminated capsule has less offensive low frequency modes,
>>> because the maximum unsupported span is less.
>>>
>>> I don't think it's possible to transform one caspule type into the other
>>> with any reasonable computable filter.
>>>
>>
>> So what I did is impossible? Interesting theory.
>>
>> d
>
>No. I did it years ago with V/O only on a U 87 and an RE27ND. The limitations
>of one speaking voice, however, prevent extrapolation to a wider range or
>sources. Just changing from voice to acoustic guitar makes a really big
>difference.
>
>Don, (and others) please try the same thing on the Test 2 files of acoustic
>guitar files which I recorded using the NT1-a and the TLM 103 and see what
>happens. They are .wav files in the Audio folder in a folder titled TLM
>103-NT1-a.
>
>Regards,
>
>Ty Ford

>
Ty, thanks. Yes I did look at those, but I seem to remember there was
some other problem? Were they limiting or something? Whatever, I will
have another look and see what I can make of them. I do find the human
voice more revealing than anything else, though. I find it quite
difficult to identify differences with a guitar.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Pops]

I recently had a similar thought and experience in terms of the usage of
the word "good" mic, pre-amp, mixer, recorder, etc.....

My argument consisted of determining what really does the term "good" or
in this case, "inexpensive," really mean? To a person on a budget,
possibly it's what's affordable within a certain limited range. To a
person that's in a position to be endorsed by a company or just well
off, and to have a huge budget, enough to buy the best equipment there
is, the term takes on a different meaning.

Readers seemingly on this ng vary greatly, just by the nature of the
posts. So I wonder if spending say $100.00-$1,000.00 on a "good" mic and
maybe a hundred or more on a pre, is just as "good" as spending
$5,000.00 or more on the same setup.

My thinking is this, if one spends money on anything, they better know
how to get the most out it. If not, then it all amounts to just a waste
of time and cash. In other words, "It ain't what you got or get; it's
more how you use it." FWIW!

Any other thoughts?
Pops & Clicks







HiC wrote:
> Don't misconstrue the reason for my question. I'm not going to
> militantly insist that a $100 - $200 mic is every bit as good as a
> Neumann, Telefunken etc. but I'm wondering what exactly one of these
> elite mics do that a good bargain mic doesn't? I've never used one so
> have no hands-on intimate basis of comparison.
>
> Do you feel if you were to set up a recording session in a high-end
> pro studio but replace the "good" mic with one like an MXL etc. it
> would be immediately and glaringly obvious in that the sound would
> clearly be deficient? Going under the assumption that you have the mic
> going through a pre that's well suited to it.
>
> When I record a vocal on one of my Marshall MXL's, gotta be honest, to
> my ear it sounds really decent. Seems to do a good job of capturing
> the sound of my voice. I've had mics that I didn't like - had a Samson
> CO1 which I thought just plain sucked - made everything sound harsh
> and tinny, but the Marshalls I've tried sound far better - more
> pointedly they sound good, the Samson didn't. Also had a CAD E-100
> that I didn't have any complaints about on vocals.
>
> What measureable-defineable things do you get out of one of the high-
> dollar, highly exalted mics that you don't out of a better-sounding
> budget mic? Is it something where you just have to hear them side by
> side to really get? Are there any sites that demonstrate a comparison?
>

[Don Pearce]

On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 15:40:04 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

>On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 11:30:23 -0400, Ty Ford >
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 18:10:55 -0400, Don Pearce wrote
>>(in article >):
>>
>>> On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 11:00:01 -0400, "Soundhaspriority"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Don Pearce" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On 30 Mar 2007 17:22:05 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Paul Stamler > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't know whether the harshness comes from the diaphragm problems
>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>> is talking about, bad electronic design or crappy transformers, but it's
>>>>>>> almost always there in cheap condensers, almost never in expensive mics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All of the three. And SOMETIMES it's designed into the mikes in an
>>>>>> attempt
>>>>>> to make them sound better, by people who don't know what good mikes sound
>>>>>> like, who are selling to people who don't know what good mikes sound like.
>>>>>> --scott
>>>>>
>>>>> This may be of interest here. It is a summary of a comparison I did in
>>>>> cooperation with Ty. The object of the exercise was to make a Rode
>>>>> NT1-A sound like a Neumann TLM103 using nothing more than eq. The
>>>>> exercise worked exceedingly well, and I now have a Rode-to-Neumann eq
>>>>> curve available in my DAW for use any time.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://81.174.169.10/odds/microphones/rode_to_neumann.htm
>>>>>
>>>> I doubt curve would hold up under a wider range of material. The NT1A has
>>>> an
>>>> edge terminated capsule, while the TLM103 has a center terminated capsule.
>>>> An undergraduate physics exercise in some textbook calculates the modes of
>>>> each. The center terminated capsule has less offensive low frequency modes,
>>>> because the maximum unsupported span is less.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think it's possible to transform one caspule type into the other
>>>> with any reasonable computable filter.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So what I did is impossible? Interesting theory.
>>>
>>> d
>>
>>No. I did it years ago with V/O only on a U 87 and an RE27ND. The limitations
>>of one speaking voice, however, prevent extrapolation to a wider range or
>>sources. Just changing from voice to acoustic guitar makes a really big
>>difference.
>>
>>Don, (and others) please try the same thing on the Test 2 files of acoustic
>>guitar files which I recorded using the NT1-a and the TLM 103 and see what
>>happens. They are .wav files in the Audio folder in a folder titled TLM
>>103-NT1-a.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Ty Ford
>
>>
>Ty, thanks. Yes I did look at those, but I seem to remember there was
>some other problem? Were they limiting or something? Whatever, I will
>have another look and see what I can make of them. I do find the human
>voice more revealing than anything else, though. I find it quite
>difficult to identify differences with a guitar.
>
>d

OK I've had a look. There was a big difference - the TLM103 was
recorded 3dB hotter than the Rode. That makes it essentially
impossible to judge. Anyway, I've done as before - I chopped out the
same piece from each (9 seconds worth) and joined the end to end. I've
applied the same eq curve to the Rode that I derived last time. See
what you think about them - similar enough?

http://81.174.169.10/odds/tlm103_nt1a_guitar.wav

Oh, and of course I got the levels matched before I did any of this. I
won't tell you which order they are in yet - you have to listen and
tell me.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[hank alrich]

Don Pearce > wrote:

>> On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 15:59:40 +1000, Soundhaspriority
>> > wrote:

Note the path:

Path:
uni-berlin.de!fu-berlin.de!postnews.google.com!news4.google.com!bor der1.
nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nx01.iad01 .newshosting.com!newsh
osting.com!post01.iad01!news.buzzardnews.com!not-for-mail


> Well, thank you for that bit of patronization. That drops you
> straight in my kill file.

It's not Bob; it's the impostor bringing buzzardnews barf.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[hank alrich]

Ty Ford wrote:

> Soundhaspriority wrote:
>
> >
> > "Ty Ford" wrote...
> >> On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:23:57 -0400, Soundhaspriority wrote
> >>
> >>> I was specifically addressing WK Yee's point. Your concerns are valid.
> >>> But I
> >>> would suggest that you look at:
> >>> http://pages.prodigy.net/jforgione/FT_Mic1.html It suggests that, as of
> >>> 2003
> >>
> >>> (and we should now allow for the possibility of further improvement in 4
> >>> years), the MXL2003 closely approximates the TLM103. Very slightly
> >>> greater
> >>> irregularities in the lower midrange do suggest that the diaphragm is not
> >>> tensioned with the quite the same isotropic precision. But at the same
> >>> time
> >>> the results do not indicate that the tensioning method is significantly
> >>> worse. Also note that, at this time, many of these mike makers have
> >>> acquired
> >>
> >>> modern testing equipment, and do age their diaphragms.
> >>
> >> Nice overview on that page, but put all the techno discourse out you want,
> >> "approximates" is a hole you can drive a VERY large gang of Harley bikers
> >> through.
> >>
> >> The bottom line is, if you can't hear the difference, buy the Marshall. If
> >> you can, buy the Neumann. Through a Mackie mixer, you're not likely to
> >> hear
> >> much difference. With a better preamp, you will.
> >>
> > Different, yes. Better, I don't see it in the graph. Not a bit.
> >
> >> I have two tlm 103. As the info on the page seems to say, the price
> >> difference between them and the Marshall is justified.
> >>
> > But the measurements don't. I speculate that the author didn't want to get
> > too far in front of "conventional wisdom", ie., prejudice.
> >
> > Supposing the difference is audible, the author acknowledges that the
> > extremely thin diaphragm of the 2003 gives it better HF extension than the
> > 103. As far as the low end, bypassing the output caps with 1 ufd ceramics
> > could very well change that.
> >
> > Ty, you have a lot of money tied up in the 103, and I sympathize with pain
> > if the the 2003 was to upstage it. This is called, "cognitive dissonance".
> > It's just like 1951, when people could not stand the idea that the Nikon SP
> > rangefinder camera was the equal of the Leica. It turned out that the optics
> > were actually better, but people just couldn't get over their prejudice for
> > many years.
>
> Bob,
>
> I have no pain associated with the purchase of my mics or preamps. People who
> have to look at audio usually as their primary reference usually do so
> because they can't hear. I listen first and then look if I need to.
>
> You make it seem as though I'm a lonely orphan with my burdensome TLM 103.
> Poor me. Please buy as many 2003 as you budget will allow.
>
> You're calling my disagreement with you prejudice. That gets you really low
> marks by the debating society.

It also gets him high marks in the Ignorance category, and not just for
thinking he can hear the graphs. Whenever I have found that something
inexpensive will completely replace something more costly I have
unloaded the costly item and replaced it with the less costly one.

Bob apparently needs to believe he hears graphs in order to justify his
appreciation of cheap mics. Hence his own prejudice rules his own roost.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[hank alrich]

Ty Ford wrote:

> Don Pearce wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 18:29:38 -0400, "Soundhaspriority" wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> "Don Pearce" wrote:

> >>>>> This may be of interest here. It is a summary of a comparison I did in
> >>>>> cooperation with Ty. The object of the exercise was to make a Rode
> >>>>> NT1-A sound like a Neumann TLM103 using nothing more than eq. The
> >>>>> exercise worked exceedingly well, and I now have a Rode-to-Neumann eq
> >>>>> curve available in my DAW for use any time.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://81.174.169.10/odds/microphones/rode_to_neumann.htm
> >>>>>
> >>>> I doubt curve would hold up under a wider range of material. The NT1A has
> >>>> an edge terminated capsule, while the TLM103 has a center terminated
> >>>> capsule. An undergraduate physics exercise in some textbook
> >>>> calculates the modes of each. The center terminated capsule has less
> >>>> offensive low frequency modes, because the maximum unsupported span
> >>>> is less.
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't think it's possible to transform one caspule type into the other
> >>>> with any reasonable computable filter.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> So what I did is impossible? Interesting theory.
> >>>
> >>> d
> >>>
> >> The modes are too complicated, and the axial response is different for each
> >> angle. It is impossible to do. But it is well known that our ears can be
> >> fooled, and I don't doubt you did it for certain material. For other
> >> material, you would have to redo your filter.
> >>
> > I don't know about that. The human voice is by far the most severe
> > test you can impose on any piece of audio gear. As for modes, there is
> > no reason for them to be important at low frequencies - you have that
> > backwards. At low frequencies you will only excite the fundamental
> > mode of vibration, which is in any case sufficiently well damped that
> > there will be no chance of movement other than the whole diaphragm
> > following the wave. At high frequencies, yes the Neumann diaphragm is
> > effectively smaller in terms of vibrating aperture, but the dead spot
> > in the centre will actually create greater unevenness in off-axis
> > response then letting the whole diaphragm move - a bit like comb
> > filtering from two speaker drivers as opposed to the smooth response
> > of one larger driver.

> I do know about that. The extended frequency range of the acoustic guitar
> relative to the human voice makes quite a difference.

But it pales besides the complexity of a good grand piano, and for
voices, it's that complexity that makes them such good mic checkers.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[No Name]

It drains money from your bank account much more quickly. It results in
severe cases of buyer's remorse.

"HiC" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Do you feel if you were to set up a recording session in a high-end
> pro studio but replace the "good" mic with one like an MXL etc. it
> would be immediately and glaringly obvious in that the sound would
> clearly be deficient? Going under the assumption that you have the mic
> going through a pre that's well suited to it.

I'm undergoing this experience as we speak. I've lost the use of the AKG
C451's that I've been recording with for several years. To replace them, I
decided to buy the cheapest possible direct substitute. The Behringer C-2,
seems to do the job just as well. They come in a cute foam-lined plastic
carrying case, complete with hardware and instructions in 12 different
languages, for $50/pr. I'm in the midst of evaluating them, but so far
nobody has noticed the change.

Norm Strong

[Scott Dorsey]

Soundhaspriority > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> seelectronics.com. They are probably the biggest of the
>> independently-owned
>> Shanghai facilities, basically a joint operation between US, Chinese, and
>> UK
>> companies. For various reasons I can't talk about their products.
>>
>If your arrangment prevents you from examining and reviewing other Chinese
>mikes, it's unfortunate. What you know about "sE" is not necessarily true
>for 797.

No, the 797 factory makes capsules of a completely different design than
the various Shanghai folks. It's also an adaptation of the U87 design
however, and also has some problems.

There are quite a few Chinese facilities that I can't talk about, but I
do not have a consulting contract with any of them. The 797 products I
can talk pretty freely about although I admit I haven't taken one apart
in the last year or two.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

Don Pearce > wrote:
>
>This may be of interest here. It is a summary of a comparison I did in
>cooperation with Ty. The object of the exercise was to make a Rode
>NT1-A sound like a Neumann TLM103 using nothing more than eq. The
>exercise worked exceedingly well, and I now have a Rode-to-Neumann eq
>curve available in my DAW for use any time.

Now move both mikes ten degrees and try again.
--scott


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

[Scott Dorsey]

Don Pearce > wrote:
>On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 11:00:01 -0400, "Soundhaspriority"
>>
>>I don't think it's possible to transform one caspule type into the other
>>with any reasonable computable filter.
>
>So what I did is impossible? Interesting theory.

No, what you did was just an approximation.

It is possible to transform one capsule type into another capsule type
ON ONE AXIS if the reference capsule is a pressure response capsule
whose impulse response is better than the capsule being modelled.

However, that "ON ONE AXIS" thing pretty much kills actual utility of
the thing in the field, where the off-axis response and pattern control
has a lot to do with why people select a given microphone.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Arny Krueger > wrote:
>"Soundhaspriority" > wrote in message

>
>> I took apart two MXL603s mikes. The caps were cheap
>> ceramics.
>
>Ceramics are just fine for bypassing. I analyzed the traces on a pair of
>603s I had at home, and all of the ceramic caps were connected to ground at
>one end.

Not all ceramics are just fine for bypassing. Some are excellent and some
are terrible and without running square waves through it can be hard to know
which is which.

You will even find ceramics used as coupling capacitors on the high-Z input
of some microphones. If the ceramics are selected properly and the circuit
layout is done right, you can actually get the distortion down to lower than
that of a film cap, in part because of the lower leakage.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

Pops > wrote:
>Readers seemingly on this ng vary greatly, just by the nature of the
>posts. So I wonder if spending say $100.00-$1,000.00 on a "good" mic and
>maybe a hundred or more on a pre, is just as "good" as spending
>$5,000.00 or more on the same setup.

Depends. $5k will get you into the entry point of the high end microphone
and preamp realm... you ought to be able to get a couple Schoeps and a
Millennia in that price range. If your goal is transparency, a system
like this is hands down better than anything you will find in the $1k
range.

BUT, you can spend $5K and get some total crap too... I recently had
some "tube mikes" from a major Asian manufacturer on the bench that sold for
around $2K and were totally unlistenable garbage.

>My thinking is this, if one spends money on anything, they better know
>how to get the most out it. If not, then it all amounts to just a waste
>of time and cash. In other words, "It ain't what you got or get; it's
>more how you use it." FWIW!

Well, that's absolutely true.
--scott

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

[Don Pearce]

On 1 Apr 2007 15:15:10 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Don Pearce > wrote:
>>On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 11:00:01 -0400, "Soundhaspriority"
>>>
>>>I don't think it's possible to transform one caspule type into the other
>>>with any reasonable computable filter.
>>
>>So what I did is impossible? Interesting theory.
>
>No, what you did was just an approximation.
>
>It is possible to transform one capsule type into another capsule type
>ON ONE AXIS if the reference capsule is a pressure response capsule
>whose impulse response is better than the capsule being modelled.
>
>However, that "ON ONE AXIS" thing pretty much kills actual utility of
>the thing in the field, where the off-axis response and pattern control
>has a lot to do with why people select a given microphone.
>--scott

Sure, I know they will be different. But which one will be "better"?
They have a similar size of capsule, so the geometry of the thing vs
the wavelength of the sound will be about the same. That means they
actually won't be enormously different.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Scott Dorsey]

Don Pearce > wrote:
>>
>>It is possible to transform one capsule type into another capsule type
>>ON ONE AXIS if the reference capsule is a pressure response capsule
>>whose impulse response is better than the capsule being modelled.
>>
>>However, that "ON ONE AXIS" thing pretty much kills actual utility of
>>the thing in the field, where the off-axis response and pattern control
>>has a lot to do with why people select a given microphone.
>
>Sure, I know they will be different. But which one will be "better"?

As in "better impulse response" or as in better-sounding?

>They have a similar size of capsule, so the geometry of the thing vs
>the wavelength of the sound will be about the same. That means they
>actually won't be enormously different.

The off-axis response on the two mikes cited are actually totally
different. Remember that very small geometry changes turn into huge
off-axis response changes.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Don Pearce]

On 1 Apr 2007 16:15:06 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Don Pearce > wrote:
>>>
>>>It is possible to transform one capsule type into another capsule type
>>>ON ONE AXIS if the reference capsule is a pressure response capsule
>>>whose impulse response is better than the capsule being modelled.
>>>
>>>However, that "ON ONE AXIS" thing pretty much kills actual utility of
>>>the thing in the field, where the off-axis response and pattern control
>>>has a lot to do with why people select a given microphone.
>>
>>Sure, I know they will be different. But which one will be "better"?
>
>As in "better impulse response" or as in better-sounding?
>

Either way you care to look at it. I guess in the end it is the sound
that matters.

>>They have a similar size of capsule, so the geometry of the thing vs
>>the wavelength of the sound will be about the same. That means they
>>actually won't be enormously different.
>
>The off-axis response on the two mikes cited are actually totally
>different. Remember that very small geometry changes turn into huge
>off-axis response changes.
>--scott

That is a bit hard to say for me - I have the Rode, but not the
Neumann. What I can say for certain, though is that the published
curves on the Neumann web site are works of fiction - they are
idealized nonsense drawn by a marketing man. I can also see that the
Neumann capsule has a huge amount of extraneous metal round it
compared to the Rode - that must compromise the high frequency
off-axis response to a great degree. Given all that, I would suspect
that the off-axis response of the Rode is somewhat better than that of
the Neumann.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Scott Dorsey]

Don Pearce > wrote:
>That is a bit hard to say for me - I have the Rode, but not the
>Neumann. What I can say for certain, though is that the published
>curves on the Neumann web site are works of fiction - they are
>idealized nonsense drawn by a marketing man. I can also see that the
>Neumann capsule has a huge amount of extraneous metal round it
>compared to the Rode - that must compromise the high frequency
>off-axis response to a great degree. Given all that, I would suspect
>that the off-axis response of the Rode is somewhat better than that of
>the Neumann.

Right, but the off-axis response weirdness is what makes the Neumann
what it is.
--scott


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

[drichard]

Huh? Please explain that comment.

If off-axis weirdness makes a Neumann what it is, then why pay lots of
money for it? We can buy off-axis weirdness from all sorts of
manufacturers, and for not much money at all. The fact that some
people prefer the Neumann's off-axis weirdness to some Chinese
manufacturer's off-axis weirdness seems like a matter of taste - in
other words a subjective decision, not an objective one.

Dean



On Apr 1, 4:22 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> Don Pearce > wrote:
> >That is a bit hard to say for me - I have the Rode, but not the
> >Neumann. What I can say for certain, though is that the published
> >curves on the Neumann web site are works of fiction - they are
> >idealized nonsense drawn by a marketing man. I can also see that the
> >Neumann capsule has a huge amount of extraneous metal round it
> >compared to the Rode - that must compromise the high frequency
> >off-axis response to a great degree. Given all that, I would suspect
> >that the off-axis response of the Rode is somewhat better than that of
> >the Neumann.
>
> Right, but the off-axis response weirdness is what makes the Neumann
> what it is.
> --scott
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

On Apr 1, 6:03 pm, "drichard" > wrote:

> If off-axis weirdness makes a Neumann what it is, then why pay lots of
> money for it? We can buy off-axis weirdness from all sorts of
> manufacturers, and for not much money at all.

Hey, you can buy distortion from all sorts of manufacturers, but
there's only one API mic preamp.

> The fact that some
> people prefer the Neumann's off-axis weirdness to some Chinese
> manufacturer's off-axis weirdness seems like a matter of taste - in
> other words a subjective decision, not an objective one.

Perhaps it's the consistency between mics. If you only own one mic, or
one of a particular type, you can learn its quirks, learn what to take
advantage of, and what to avoid. The thing about a U87 is that it's a
known standard, for both better and worse. And if you know how to use
one U87, you know how to use all of them. That doesn't mean there
aren't some fabulously good ones (though many claim that there aren't
any) and some dogs, but the dogs can get fixed and brought up to
performing like the "standard" that everyone who knows U87s expects.

Try that with your Heartoday Chinese mic. They'll plug it in, and if
sound comes out, they'll send it back and tell you that it works. I
would expect better from some of the more conscientious US sellers of
mics which are designed to their specifications and built in China, at
least to the extent of replacement if it isn't up to par. But you
won't see technicians at Studio Projects in California taking in mics
for repair and replacing or adjusting diaphragms. Brent Casey has
learned a lot working with Stephen Paul and Tony Merrill, and by now
maybe he COULD tune up a condenser mic, but that's not the business
they're in.

[Scott Dorsey]

drichard > wrote:
>
>If off-axis weirdness makes a Neumann what it is, then why pay lots of
>money for it?

Because that's the sound people want. That's the sound people expect, and
have come to learn to use as a tool.

>We can buy off-axis weirdness from all sorts of
>manufacturers, and for not much money at all.

Yes, but it's different, and it's not consistent from unit to unit.

>The fact that some
>people prefer the Neumann's off-axis weirdness to some Chinese
>manufacturer's off-axis weirdness seems like a matter of taste - in
>other words a subjective decision, not an objective one.

Of course! ALL microphone decisions are completely subjective. When
you are attempting to produce new sounds rather than reproduce the sound
of a hall, as is probably the case when you are choosing a colored microphone,
the decisions are ESPECIALLY subjective.

The objective arguments in favor of the Neumann mostly have to do with things
like consistency, long-term reliability, and resale value. The sonic arguments
are entirely subjective.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 16:41:30 -0700, (hank alrich)
wrote:

>Firstly, is all off-axis weirdness equally glorious, and secondly, where
>it comes to what we hear, what does objectivity have to do with it?
>
>But whatever works for you.

I was at my day-job gig sometime back and pulled out my
Rocket hammer. A (real) carpenter started telling me how
wonderful it was and how they sell on Ebay for big bux, etc.

To me, less-than-an-amateur carpenter, it's just an old
hammer with a shiny head that's not as easy to use as a
serrated modern hammer. I'm not strong enough to be
consistent enough to properly use an old hammer that
comes out of the tool box maybe once a month.

To the (real) carpenter though, the shiny head is just right,
and other things (I don't even know what things!) matter
a lot. But that's tools; he doesn't need as good a DVM as
I do. Arf. I'm keeping it though, in hopes of growing into it.

Much thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck

[hank alrich]

drichard wrote:

> I hope Hank Alrich doesn't mind me mentioning
> his experiences with the MCA SP-1

Don't mind at all unless anybody starts thinking I'm emptying my locker
in favor of these. If one needs a cheap mic, the SP-1 is plenty cheap
and works okay, too. It hasn't become first-call for anything yet, and
might not until it gets mod'd. If the mods relieve its edge, it moves up
the ladder.

Good mics, just like good preamps. offer me, personally, a better sense
of the reality of the source. It all sounds more _real_ and less
reproduced.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[John L Rice]

"Romeo Rondeau" > wrote in message
. net...
>
>> Not to mention the aging process.
>> Joe
>
> Hey! Leave Mike Rivers out of this! :-)

LOL! ;-)

John L Rice

[hank alrich]

drichard > wrote:

> Huh? Please explain that comment.
>
> If off-axis weirdness makes a Neumann what it is, then why pay lots of
> money for it? We can buy off-axis weirdness from all sorts of
> manufacturers, and for not much money at all. The fact that some
> people prefer the Neumann's off-axis weirdness to some Chinese
> manufacturer's off-axis weirdness seems like a matter of taste - in
> other words a subjective decision, not an objective one.

Firstly, is all off-axis weirdness equally glorious, and secondly, where
it comes to what we hear, what does objectivity have to do with it?

But whatever works for you. But don't expect everyone else to appreciate
it equally and don't be surprised if someone in charge of a recording
project picks someone else just because of what's in the mic locker.

Neumann has been dealing with off-axis response for a long time. They
may well have experience that allows them to manipulate the character of
that response in ways that many people will hear favorably.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Arny Krueger]

"Soundhaspriority" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Soundhaspriority" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> I took apart two MXL603s mikes. The caps were cheap
>>> ceramics.
>>
>> Ceramics are just fine for bypassing. I analyzed the
>> traces on a pair of 603s I had at home, and all of the
>> ceramic caps were connected to ground at one end.
>>
>>> With one of the mikes, unscrewing the capsule
>>> was almost impossible, because the stainless steel mesh
>>> covering the back vents, which had merely been glued in
>>> place, had dislodged and jammed the threads. These 603s
>>> mikes (my sample) are crappy mikes!
>>
>> No problems with my pair. The threaded parts came apart
>> and went together smoothly.
>>
>> I think we're seeing one of early answers - one of the
>> things you get with expensive mics is more consistency.

> So how do you like them for distance miking?

I don't use them for that much, but I have in the past and they were fine.

I have one that I use with a foam pop filter as a vocal mic for a certain
person whose voice works well with it.

I have another that I've been using to close-mic a grand piano.

A matched pair of 603s on a mic bar is my backup for the NT-4.

> Have you replaced any of the caps?

No, in fact I hadn't ever disassembled them until my last post about them.

> I did, and I added 1ufd ceramics in parallel with the Wimas.

Whatever.

[hank alrich]

Soundhaspriority wrote:

> "hank alrich" wrote in message
> [snip]
> >
> >They may well have experience that allows them to manipulate the character
> >of
> > that response in ways that many people will hear favorably.
> >
> You may think they may, but I think they may not.

Then you are pressed to explain the longterm reverence for many of their
LDC's, a reverence I can well understand from personal experience.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Arny Krueger]

"Soundhaspriority" > wrote in message


> Theoretically it isn't impossible, but clearly from your
> background and previous experience you don't have the
> capability to perform this kind of experiment correctly.
> What you're actually doing belongs in the Arnie Krueger
> school of science, which is lightweight and full of
> easily exposed technical errors.
>
> It would take someone with a real scientific background
> to do such an experiment properly. I'm much too busy
> working on my booming recording career to take on another
> project now, but I'll let you know.

> Bob Morein
> Dresher, PA
> (215) 646-4894

Actually, it has the imprint of a forgery -

Path:
border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nx 01.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!post01.ia d01!news.buzzardnews.com!not-for-mail


Here's the sourcing of the real thing from Bob:

Path:
border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!lo cal01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POST ED!not-for-mail

Key words

buzzardnews = forgery

giganews = real thing

[Ty Ford]

On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 11:40:04 -0400, Don Pearce wrote
(in article >):

> On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 11:30:23 -0400, Ty Ford >
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 18:10:55 -0400, Don Pearce wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 11:00:01 -0400, "Soundhaspriority"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Don Pearce" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On 30 Mar 2007 17:22:05 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Paul Stamler > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't know whether the harshness comes from the diaphragm problems
>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>> is talking about, bad electronic design or crappy transformers, but
>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>> almost always there in cheap condensers, almost never in expensive
>>>>>>> mics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All of the three. And SOMETIMES it's designed into the mikes in an
>>>>>> attempt
>>>>>> to make them sound better, by people who don't know what good mikes
>>>>>> sound
>>>>>> like, who are selling to people who don't know what good mikes sound
>>>>>> like.
>>>>>> --scott
>>>>>
>>>>> This may be of interest here. It is a summary of a comparison I did in
>>>>> cooperation with Ty. The object of the exercise was to make a Rode
>>>>> NT1-A sound like a Neumann TLM103 using nothing more than eq. The
>>>>> exercise worked exceedingly well, and I now have a Rode-to-Neumann eq
>>>>> curve available in my DAW for use any time.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://81.174.169.10/odds/microphones/rode_to_neumann.htm
>>>>>
>>>> I doubt curve would hold up under a wider range of material. The NT1A has
>>>> an
>>>> edge terminated capsule, while the TLM103 has a center terminated
>>>> capsule.
>>>> An undergraduate physics exercise in some textbook calculates the modes
>>>> of
>>>> each. The center terminated capsule has less offensive low frequency
>>>> modes,
>>>> because the maximum unsupported span is less.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think it's possible to transform one caspule type into the other
>>>> with any reasonable computable filter.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So what I did is impossible? Interesting theory.
>>>
>>> d
>>
>> No. I did it years ago with V/O only on a U 87 and an RE27ND. The
>> limitations
>> of one speaking voice, however, prevent extrapolation to a wider range or
>> sources. Just changing from voice to acoustic guitar makes a really big
>> difference.
>>
>> Don, (and others) please try the same thing on the Test 2 files of acoustic
>> guitar files which I recorded using the NT1-a and the TLM 103 and see what
>> happens. They are .wav files in the Audio folder in a folder titled TLM
>> 103-NT1-a.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Ty Ford
>
>>
> Ty, thanks. Yes I did look at those, but I seem to remember there was
> some other problem? Were they limiting or something? Whatever, I will
> have another look and see what I can make of them. I do find the human
> voice more revealing than anything else, though. I find it quite
> difficult to identify differences with a guitar.
>
> d

Don,

no problems that I recall.

Yes the voice is complex. I've been using mine as a "test pattern" for years.
But voice lacks the high and low frequencies that show a mic's other
capabilities. The dreaded key jangle test is also quite revealing.

Regards,

Ty



--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

[Ty Ford]

On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 12:18:47 -0400, Don Pearce wrote
(in article >):

> On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 15:40:04 GMT, (Don Pearce)
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 11:30:23 -0400, Ty Ford >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 18:10:55 -0400, Don Pearce wrote
>>> (in article >):
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 11:00:01 -0400, "Soundhaspriority"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Don Pearce" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On 30 Mar 2007 17:22:05 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Paul Stamler > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't know whether the harshness comes from the diaphragm problems
>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>> is talking about, bad electronic design or crappy transformers, but
>>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>> almost always there in cheap condensers, almost never in expensive
>>>>>>>> mics.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All of the three. And SOMETIMES it's designed into the mikes in an
>>>>>>> attempt
>>>>>>> to make them sound better, by people who don't know what good mikes
>>>>>>> sound
>>>>>>> like, who are selling to people who don't know what good mikes sound
>>>>>>> like.
>>>>>>> --scott
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This may be of interest here. It is a summary of a comparison I did in
>>>>>> cooperation with Ty. The object of the exercise was to make a Rode
>>>>>> NT1-A sound like a Neumann TLM103 using nothing more than eq. The
>>>>>> exercise worked exceedingly well, and I now have a Rode-to-Neumann eq
>>>>>> curve available in my DAW for use any time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://81.174.169.10/odds/microphones/rode_to_neumann.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>> I doubt curve would hold up under a wider range of material. The NT1A
>>>>> has
>>>>> an
>>>>> edge terminated capsule, while the TLM103 has a center terminated
>>>>> capsule.
>>>>> An undergraduate physics exercise in some textbook calculates the modes
>>>>> of
>>>>> each. The center terminated capsule has less offensive low frequency
>>>>> modes,
>>>>> because the maximum unsupported span is less.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think it's possible to transform one caspule type into the other
>>>>> with any reasonable computable filter.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So what I did is impossible? Interesting theory.
>>>>
>>>> d
>>>
>>> No. I did it years ago with V/O only on a U 87 and an RE27ND. The
>>> limitations
>>> of one speaking voice, however, prevent extrapolation to a wider range or
>>> sources. Just changing from voice to acoustic guitar makes a really big
>>> difference.
>>>
>>> Don, (and others) please try the same thing on the Test 2 files of
>>> acoustic
>>> guitar files which I recorded using the NT1-a and the TLM 103 and see what
>>> happens. They are .wav files in the Audio folder in a folder titled TLM
>>> 103-NT1-a.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Ty Ford
>>
>>>
>> Ty, thanks. Yes I did look at those, but I seem to remember there was
>> some other problem? Were they limiting or something? Whatever, I will
>> have another look and see what I can make of them. I do find the human
>> voice more revealing than anything else, though. I find it quite
>> difficult to identify differences with a guitar.
>>
>> d
>
> OK I've had a look. There was a big difference - the TLM103 was
> recorded 3dB hotter than the Rode. That makes it essentially
> impossible to judge.

:sigh: the TLM 103 is 3 dB hotter than the Rode. Impossible? Then I do the
impossible with every mic I review.

Regards,

Ty


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

[Ty Ford]

On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 15:01:45 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote
(in article >):

> Don Pearce > wrote:
>>
>> This may be of interest here. It is a summary of a comparison I did in
>> cooperation with Ty. The object of the exercise was to make a Rode
>> NT1-A sound like a Neumann TLM103 using nothing more than eq. The
>> exercise worked exceedingly well, and I now have a Rode-to-Neumann eq
>> curve available in my DAW for use any time.
>
> Now move both mikes ten degrees and try again.
> --scott
>
>
>

Thanks for my first chuckle of the day.

Regards,

Ty

--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
oups.com

> Try that with your Heartoday Chinese mic.

I haven't returned a lot of Chinese mics, but when I returned my MXL 603s,
vastly improved mics came back.

> They'll plug it
> in, and if sound comes out, they'll send it back and tell
> you that it works.

My origional MXL 603s would work fine with some phantom sources, but were
kinda noisy with others.

The MXL 603s that came back worked well under any reasonable conditions.

> I would expect better from some of the
> more conscientious US sellers of mics which are designed
> to their specifications and built in China, at least to
> the extent of replacement if it isn't up to par. But you
> won't see technicians at Studio Projects in California
> taking in mics for repair and replacing or adjusting
> diaphragms.

I would expect them to simply swap capsules, which should do the job if
intelligently done.

>Brent Casey has learned a lot working with
> Stephen Paul and Tony Merrill, and by now maybe he COULD
> tune up a condenser mic, but that's not the business
> they're in.

Brent Casey is the guy I corresponded with about my 603s. He did right by
me.

[Arny Krueger]

"Soundhaspriority" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Soundhaspriority" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> I doubt curve would hold up under a wider range of
>>> material.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>>> The NT1A has an edge terminated capsule, while
>>> the TLM103 has a center terminated capsule. An
>>> undergraduate physics exercise in some textbook
>>> calculates the modes of each. The center terminated
>>> capsule has less offensive low frequency modes, because
>>> the maximum unsupported span is less.
>>
>> Vibrational modes can vary, but the variations affect
>> frequency response. If a center termination was categorically superior,
>> then
>> would Neumann make any LD mics with edge termination?
>>
>> I don't think so.
>>
> They make the edge terminated capsules for an entirely
> different reason than you suppose.

Which is?

> In a Neumann
> edge-terminated design, the exposed capsule surface is at
> ground potential, reducing the rate of contamination.

Your point? There's got to be more to this story than that. What you
haven't shown is a practical problem with edge-termination.

[Scott Dorsey]

Arny Krueger > wrote:
>"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
>
>>Brent Casey has learned a lot working with
>> Stephen Paul and Tony Merrill, and by now maybe he COULD
>> tune up a condenser mic, but that's not the business
>> they're in.
>
>Brent Casey is the guy I corresponded with about my 603s. He did right by
>me.

Brent is a great guy, but he's not working for Marshall any more. When
he left, there were some production changes made too.
--scott

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

[chestek]

Soundhaspriority wrote:
> It irks me that I have lost at least one opportunity to record a
> classical ensemble because I do not have Neumann microphones. It annoys me
> that to buy the badge in the form of a stereo pair would set me back around
> $2400. I would rather spend it on DPA or Schoeps. And if I do need the
> extremely low noise these provide, I would rather follow Don Pearce's choice
> of a Rode.
>
> Regards,
> Bob Morein
> Dresher, PA
> (215) 646-4894

Rather than losing the gig, you might have rented a couple of Neumanns
(Dreamhire rents KM84s for $25 and U87s for $40 a day). If the gig
didn't pay enough to cover the rental, it probably wasn't worth your
time either.

And actually having the opportunity to USE said Neumanns is worth more
than ten thousand usenet posts theorizing about what's good and what
ain't. You have to use YOUR ears to decide whether the badge is worth
it to you.

JChestek

[Jay Kadis]

In article >,
Romeo Rondeau > wrote:

> Jay Kadis wrote:
> > In article >,
> > (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> >
> >> Paul Stamler > wrote:
> >>> I don't know whether the harshness comes from the diaphragm problems Scott
> >>> is talking about, bad electronic design or crappy transformers, but it's
> >>> almost always there in cheap condensers, almost never in expensive mics.
> >> All of the three. And SOMETIMES it's designed into the mikes in an attempt
> >> to make them sound better, by people who don't know what good mikes sound
> >> like, who are selling to people who don't know what good mikes sound like.
> >> --scott
> >
> > And the tendency slang to make into the dictionary if enough people use
> > it sets a troubling precedent.
>
> Language evolves.

So does the average person's estimation of what is good audio.
I think that would be Scott's point.

-Jay

--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x ---- Jay's Attic Studio ----x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x

[Romeo Rondeau]

Jay Kadis wrote:
> In article >,
> Romeo Rondeau > wrote:
>
>> Jay Kadis wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Paul Stamler > wrote:
>>>>> I don't know whether the harshness comes from the diaphragm problems Scott
>>>>> is talking about, bad electronic design or crappy transformers, but it's
>>>>> almost always there in cheap condensers, almost never in expensive mics.
>>>> All of the three. And SOMETIMES it's designed into the mikes in an attempt
>>>> to make them sound better, by people who don't know what good mikes sound
>>>> like, who are selling to people who don't know what good mikes sound like.
>>>> --scott
>>> And the tendency slang to make into the dictionary if enough people use
>>> it sets a troubling precedent.
>> Language evolves.
>
> So does the average person's estimation of what is good audio.
> I think that would be Scott's point.

Of course it does, technology evolves too...

[Scott Dorsey]

Romeo Rondeau > wrote:
>Jay Kadis wrote:
>>
>> So does the average person's estimation of what is good audio.
>> I think that would be Scott's point.
>
>Of course it does, technology evolves too...

In the case of audio reproduction, where we are trying to actually duplicate
the sound in the hall, the estimation of what is good does not evolve much.
This is because we have a standard reference to base our judgement on.

In the audio production world, where recordings are being made up of sounds
that never existed in the real world, there is a great deal of room for
different opinions about what sounds good. The super-dead studios of the
seventies gave way to LEDE designs in the eighties and nineties. The
current fad for overcompression is another example.... currently folks seem
in favor of it, but in a few years it will sound very dated.

Likewise these mikes with the harsh and screechy top ends, like the
AKG C1000 and C3000 and many of the Chinese microphones, are probably
made harsh and screechy because that is what the designers were aiming
for. However, I can't stand stuff that sounds this way.

But then, I come from the reproduction side of the industry and not the
production side.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On Mar 28, 9:07 pm, "HiC" > wrote:
> Don't misconstrue the reason for my question. I'm not going to
> militantly insist that a $100 - $200 mic is every bit as good as a
> Neumann, Telefunken etc. but I'm wondering what exactly one of these
> elite mics do that a good bargain mic doesn't? I've never used one so
> have no hands-on intimate basis of comparison.

> What measureable-defineable things do you get out of one of the high-
> dollar, highly exalted mics that you don't out of a better-sounding
> budget mic? Is it something where you just have to hear them side by
> side to really get? Are there any sites that demonstrate a comparison?

Ok maybe this will help answer at least one aspect of the question. I
uploaded a pair of recordings in a zipfile comparing two omni mics,
one budget and one high dollar on my simple website so start at the
home page and follow the links:

http://www.bsstudios.com

I did this experiment a few years ago to answer the same question for
myself. Both mics (Gold-Line mk-10c and Schoeps cmc6+mk2) were
recorded through Martech MSS-10 preamps. Both recordings were gain
matched using a B&K 4231 mic calibrator. Can you identify the three
sound sources recorded? Can you hear a difference between the mics?

bobs

Bob Smith
BS Studios
we organize chaos
http://www.bsstudios.com

[Carey Carlan]

"Soundhaspriority" > wrote in
:

>
> "chestek" > wrote in message
> news:Zr7Qh.3330$jZ3.886@trnddc06...
>> Soundhaspriority wrote:
>>> It irks me that I have lost at least one opportunity to record a
>>> classical ensemble because I do not have Neumann microphones.
<snip>
>> Rather than losing the gig, you might have rented a couple of
>> Neumanns (Dreamhire rents KM84s for $25 and U87s for $40 a day). If
>> the gig didn't pay enough to cover the rental, it probably wasn't
>> worth your time either.
>>
> J,
> It was not a paying gig. Even so, I would certainly have done what
> you suggest, except that the venue was 100 miles away from NYC.

I don't consider a non-paying gig 100 miles away to be an "opportunity".

[Scott Dorsey]

Soundhaspriority > wrote:
>
>Scott, you really ought to get your hands on a Studio Projects C-4 set. I
>have spoken to the US designer. He owns a pair of Schoeps. While quite
>modest in his comparison of the two, he clearly wants these mikes to be the
>best he can do at the price.

I have tested them out, yes, as well as other microphones from the same
source.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message

> It drains money from your bank account much more quickly.
> It results in severe cases of buyer's remorse.
>
> "HiC" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>>
>> Do you feel if you were to set up a recording session in
>> a high-end pro studio but replace the "good" mic with
>> one like an MXL etc. it would be immediately and
>> glaringly obvious in that the sound would clearly be
>> deficient? Going under the assumption that you have the
>> mic going through a pre that's well suited to it.
>
> I'm undergoing this experience as we speak. I've lost
> the use of the AKG C451's that I've been recording with
> for several years. To replace them, I decided to buy the
> cheapest possible direct substitute. The Behringer C-2,
> seems to do the job just as well. They come in a cute
> foam-lined plastic carrying case, complete with hardware
> and instructions in 12 different languages, for $50/pr. I'm in the midst
> of evaluating them, but so far nobody
> has noticed the change.

If the respective spec sheets are any guide, you should notice that the C451
is about -1 dB @ 100 Hz while the C-2 are about 6 dB down.

[hank alrich]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> <normanstrong wrote
> > It drains money from your bank account much more quickly.
> > It results in severe cases of buyer's remorse.
> >
> > "HiC" wrote...
> >>
> >> Do you feel if you were to set up a recording session in
> >> a high-end pro studio but replace the "good" mic with
> >> one like an MXL etc. it would be immediately and
> >> glaringly obvious in that the sound would clearly be
> >> deficient? Going under the assumption that you have the
> >> mic going through a pre that's well suited to it.
> >
> > I'm undergoing this experience as we speak. I've lost
> > the use of the AKG C451's that I've been recording with
> > for several years. To replace them, I decided to buy the
> > cheapest possible direct substitute. The Behringer C-2,
> > seems to do the job just as well. They come in a cute
> > foam-lined plastic carrying case, complete with hardware
> > and instructions in 12 different languages, for $50/pr. I'm in the midst
> > of evaluating them, but so far nobody
> > has noticed the change.

Are we talking the original C451 or the new "reissue" that is such in
name only?

> If the respective spec sheets are any guide, you should notice that the C451
> is about -1 dB @ 100 Hz while the C-2 are about 6 dB down.

Perhaps HiC isn't tracking anything with info down there?

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[chestek]

Soundhaspriority wrote:
> "chestek" > wrote in message
> news:Zr7Qh.3330$jZ3.886@trnddc06...
>> Soundhaspriority wrote:
>>> It irks me that I have lost at least one opportunity to record a
>>> classical ensemble because I do not have Neumann microphones. It annoys
>>> me that to buy the badge in the form of a stereo pair would set me back
>>> around $2400. I would rather spend it on DPA or Schoeps. And if I do need
>>> the extremely low noise these provide, I would rather follow Don Pearce's
>>> choice of a Rode.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Bob Morein
>>> Dresher, PA
>>> (215) 646-4894
>> Rather than losing the gig, you might have rented a couple of Neumanns
>> (Dreamhire rents KM84s for $25 and U87s for $40 a day). If the gig didn't
>> pay enough to cover the rental, it probably wasn't worth your time either.
>>
> J,
> It was not a paying gig.

I think the expression goes: "Beggars can't be choosers." They weren't
paying, but expected top dollar gear (and presumably top dollar
results). You're probably better off not getting involved in that kind
of gig anyway, clients like that are often impossible to please.


> Even so, I would certainly have done what you
> suggest, except that the venue was 100 miles away from NYC.

Dreamhire ships.

JChestek

[Ty Ford]

On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 09:35:30 -0400, Soundhaspriority wrote
(in article >):

>
> "chestek" > wrote in message
> news:Zr7Qh.3330$jZ3.886@trnddc06...
>> Soundhaspriority wrote:
>>> It irks me that I have lost at least one opportunity to record a
>>> classical ensemble because I do not have Neumann microphones. It annoys
>>> me that to buy the badge in the form of a stereo pair would set me back
>>> around $2400. I would rather spend it on DPA or Schoeps. And if I do need
>>> the extremely low noise these provide, I would rather follow Don Pearce's
>>> choice of a Rode.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Bob Morein
>>> Dresher, PA
>>> (215) 646-4894
>>
>> Rather than losing the gig, you might have rented a couple of Neumanns
>> (Dreamhire rents KM84s for $25 and U87s for $40 a day). If the gig didn't
>> pay enough to cover the rental, it probably wasn't worth your time either.
>>
> J,
> It was not a paying gig. Even so, I would certainly have done what you
> suggest, except that the venue was 100 miles away from NYC.


Then it wasn't a gig, it was a road trip.

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

[Bev]

"Can you hear a difference between the mics?" -- Sure mainly that the
Gold-Line has a lot more noise, sort of a tape hiss sound, during the
off click moments. Not very subtle.

On Apr 2, 12:16 pm, wrote:
> On Mar 28, 9:07 pm, "HiC" > wrote:
> I did this experiment a few years ago to answer the same question for
> myself. Both mics (Gold-Line mk-10c and Schoeps cmc6+mk2) were
> recorded through Martech MSS-10 preamps. Both recordings were gain
> matched using a B&K 4231 mic calibrator. Can you identify the three
> sound sources recorded? Can you hear a difference between the mics?

[hank alrich]

Bev wrote:

> "Can you hear a difference between the mics?" -- Sure mainly that the
> Gold-Line has a lot more noise, sort of a tape hiss sound, during the
> off click moments. Not very subtle.

So you could hear the click and some noise. What else could you hear?

> Bob Smith wrote:
> > On Mar 28, 9:07 pm, "HiC" > wrote:
> > I did this experiment a few years ago to answer the same question for
> > myself. Both mics (Gold-Line mk-10c and Schoeps cmc6+mk2) were
> > recorded through Martech MSS-10 preamps. Both recordings were gain
> > matched using a B&K 4231 mic calibrator. Can you identify the three
> > sound sources recorded? Can you hear a difference between the mics?

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam