| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#41
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
best all purpose mic for $400-900
Roy W. Rising wrote:
(hank alrich wrote: Roy W. Rising wrote: I guess it comes down to this: What, *exactly*, will a high-end preamplifier do that the chips in lower cost mixers will not? I do not refer to the added bells and whistles plus booster and/or line amplifier that comes with the package ... just the preamplifier. Nor do I refer to a few dB difference in noise or dynamic range, or a few microseconds difference in transient response. Run an RNP alongside a Mackie and I doubt you will miss the difference. There are situations where a "few dB" of noise makes a big difference, as with mics like the Beyer M160's, which have a teensy little output, and which sometimes want more gain than is to be found in _any_ of the low priced spread pres, unless you wanted the sound of fries along with the source. Even the MD441 and the RE20 often benefit from more gain than I want to ask from my Mackie or A&H. I did not mention gain. Yet it happens to be one area where the good stuff creams the lousy stuff. What I get personally, even in non demanding situations, from the better preamps is a greater sense of the reality of the source, something akin to a three-dimensional reality instead of merely getting a two-dimensional representation. "Sense of reality" is not a technical term. It's not a technical term. It is a description of how I personally perceive the difference between the cheese and the cheezwhiz. Subjectively, I prefer honey-mustard dressing to ranch. The lettuce, however, must taste like lettuce! ;-p Okay, now we're on the same page. g While we can tell "hey, that's an electric guitar" through most any preamp, we may appreciate greater detail through a cleaner preamp, just like we may see more detail through a clean window compared to a sumdged one. And while one can tell that stale lettuce is still lettuce (up to a point) fresh lettuce tastes better to me, regardless of dressing. -- ha "Iraq" is Arabic for "Vietnam" |
|
#43
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
best all purpose mic for $400-900
|
|
#44
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
best all purpose mic for $400-900
Roy W. Rising wrote:
hank alrich wrote: Roy W. Rising wrote: "Paul Stamler" wrote: "Roy W. Rising" wrote in message Ah, so it's the quality of distortion! I never used a preamp to add distortion, so I guess I know not whereof I speak. Maybe Aphex' Marvin Caesar has "made a lot of money on distortion", but I've made a lot of money avoiding or getting rid of it. Read what I wrote again. One reason people buy better preamps is the lack of distortion products that are annoying. LACK. Peace, Paul OK, I've read it again. Oh. I get it. Buy a preamp with distortion products that don't annoy. But ... why work in the distortion region in the first place? All the cheap preamps offer distortion. The better preamps I have offer much less distortion. There is no perfect signal path. Audition one of Grant Carpenter's Gordon Electronics preamps. It made clean pres sound much less clean in comparison. Info at: http://www.gordonaudio.com/ I looked at the Gordon link. NO distortion spec. I guess they don't have any. Since others say that can't be so, someone is mistaken. http://www.gordonaudio.com/specs.htm Most complete set of pre specs I've found on the web. Even temp spec'd. I maintain that any preamp with audible distortion is being abused. Unless, of course, that's what you want. And then, I guess you want the more expensive "less annoying" distortion rather than the less expensive more annoying distortion. There is no perfect signal path. Even sans abuse, a pre's distortion products contribute to what we hear, or do not hear. -- ha "Iraq" is Arabic for "Vietnam" |
|
#45
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
best all purpose mic for $400-900
On 21 Jan 2007 01:01:33 GMT, Roy W. Rising
wrote: Would a cheap preamp with a THD+N spec of 0.01% be OK ... in the "acceptable distortion region"? Or must it be lower, given that the general population considers THD below 0.7% "acceptable" (Tremaine)? Ruh Roh. It's gonna be one of *those* weeks on r.a.p. All good fortune, Chris Hornbeck "History consists of truths which in the end turn into lies, while myth consists of lies which finally turn into truths." - Jean Cocteau |
|
#46
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
best all purpose mic for $400-900
(hank alrich) wrote:
Roy W. Rising wrote: Audition one of Grant Carpenter's Gordon Electronics preamps. It made clean pres sound much less clean in comparison. Info at: http://www.gordonaudio.com/ I looked at the Gordon link. NO distortion spec. I guess they don't have any. Since others say that can't be so, someone is mistaken. http://www.gordonaudio.com/specs.htm Most complete set of pre specs I've found on the web. Even temp spec'd. I looked again. Still NO DISTORTION SPECS. I maintain that any preamp with audible distortion is being abused. Unless, of course, that's what you want. And then, I guess you want the more expensive "less annoying" distortion rather than the less expensive more annoying distortion. There is no perfect signal path. Even sans abuse, a pre's distortion products contribute to what we hear, or do not hear. So ... INAUDIBLE distortion, something we DO NOT hear, contributes to what we DO hear? Look! Up in the sky! It's a bird! It's a plane! It's ... the sky! -- ~ Roy "It's NOT the mic, it's NOT the preamp!" |
|
#47
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
best all purpose mic for $400-900
"hank alrich" wrote in message
... McQ went after that and nailed it. Facing reality, people paying attention and who have hooked SM57's to good pres with transformer front ends realize that the SM57 can deliver nicely in some contexts. Mark's challenge was getting that without input iron, which would have driven the cost above his target. Yep. One only has to hook up a 57 with a Hardy M1 with Jensen 990s to find an amazing microphone hidden deep in the 57. I don't know, but I believe Mark may have decided to go after a superb 57 sound due to the fact that most Mackie products don't do the mic justice. For a small fee, McQ makes the 57 viable in a lot of studio and live situations. I don't know how Shure did it what with most early 57s being pumped into Shure Vocalmasters and little Bogens, but the mic certainly has more soul than most people will know with the average mic pre these days. And just to plug a little mixer, my Crest XR20 shows off a 57 very well. In fact, most of my dynamics have taken a turn for the better since I bought that beast 6+ years ago. JohnnyV and I have done all SM57 shows (by request for vocals) and they can sound surprisingly full and natural. Far better than a $99 price tag would suggest. So there are two mic pres I know of and have used that show the true colors of inexpensive mics, so if the RNP fits McQ's reputation for inexpensive quality products, I'd have to side with Hank. But, there's no guarantee that using one mic pre over another will do anything good for you if attention isn't paid to other details like placement. -- Roger W. Norman SirMusic Studio "Is our children learning yet?" George W. Bush http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/ |
|
#48
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
best all purpose mic for $400-900
"Roy W. Rising" wrote in message
... So ... INAUDIBLE distortion, something we DO NOT hear, contributes to what we DO hear? Look! Up in the sky! It's a bird! It's a plane! It's ... the sky! This is about one of the most inane responses I've seen on this newsgroup in years. Of course inaudible distortion contributes to what we DO hear. How can you even write this dribble? Let's try the intelligent approach. Have you heard about the camera that equals gigapixels of resolution? People 5 miles away at the Grand Canyon could be enlarged to a 5 foot photo and you could read the time on a man's watch. The article (with accompanying pictures and blowups of small portions) was in Popular Science maybe 5 months ago, but here's a place to begin. http://www.cliffordross.com/R1/gigapixel.html The idea is that there's no distortion within the range of the camera's resolution in comparison to cheaper methods of making photos, so yes, we do see more because there's less resolution distortion. And the same goes for mic pres that don't produce audible noise at a given gain as opposed to those that do. Somehow I think you won't pay attention in class though. -- Roger W. Norman SirMusic Studio "Is our children learning yet?" George W. Bush http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/ (hank alrich) wrote: Roy W. Rising wrote: Audition one of Grant Carpenter's Gordon Electronics preamps. It made clean pres sound much less clean in comparison. Info at: http://www.gordonaudio.com/ I looked at the Gordon link. NO distortion spec. I guess they don't have any. Since others say that can't be so, someone is mistaken. http://www.gordonaudio.com/specs.htm Most complete set of pre specs I've found on the web. Even temp spec'd. I looked again. Still NO DISTORTION SPECS. I maintain that any preamp with audible distortion is being abused. Unless, of course, that's what you want. And then, I guess you want the more expensive "less annoying" distortion rather than the less expensive more annoying distortion. There is no perfect signal path. Even sans abuse, a pre's distortion products contribute to what we hear, or do not hear. -- ~ Roy "It's NOT the mic, it's NOT the preamp!" |
|
#49
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
best all purpose mic for $400-900
"WillStG" wrote in message
ups.com... Because out on that "desert island" with only a couple of mics to choose from at one time or another, they made the things work and have gotten good results. Welp, as a friend says "the last mic in the closet is ALWAYS the RIGHT mic". -- Roger W. Norman SirMusic Studio "Is our children learning yet?" George W. Bush http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/ Ty Ford wrote: On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 08:24:02 -0500, mcnews wrote (in article .com): i'd like a pros opinion with much experience with many mics to off er their opinion on the best all purpose mic in the $400-900 range. i will be using it mostly for vocals, acoustic guitar and upright bass. my preamps are humble and will remain so for a while. please try to stay on topic with your reply and please do not answer my question with more questions. i am not a pro and have no aspirations to become one. just want to make decent recordings. how about the ev re-20 for example? tia, mcnewsxp Audio Technica AT4050; three patterns, nice neutral sound. Regards, Ty Ford When someone asks about an "all purpose mic", depending on your work situation different people think of different things. Were I buying a closet of studio recording mics, the "all purpose mics" are the utility players I would think of that are pretty good and could cover a number of bases when I've used all the best 1st tier mics already. If you mean a desert island" mic, one mic to record everything, many who have worked in Radio or TV will tell you about an SM7 or RE20. They are rugged, and can take high signal levels from really loud guys or kick drums, and even say Branford Marsalis has had riders that specify a couple of RE20's for his Soprano sax. But I like Ty's suggestion of the 4050 and Jay suggesting the 414 for studio recording, an "all purpose" utility for me would mean a multipattern mic that I could add a second mic and have stereo. Stereo for Overheads on drums, on a guitar or some congas, maybe throw them up over a piano. For that or for room mics, having a choice of omni, figure 8 or cardiod is useful. Stereo with figure 8's/Blumlein stereo is nice to reject noise in a room, a cardiod and a figure for M/S stereo recording is a wonderful method for lots of things, and single mics in figure 8 are great when you need a narrow pattern to reject say, an acoustic guitar when you are recording a singer/songwriter. Spaced omni if the space sounds good enough or if you are close enough - well I personally love omni mics, having used omni lavs so much in my career that I think you can do a lot with them to capture a live fell, when you're used to using them. The 414's are cheap enough used these days, but you do need to back them off your sources a bit more than you might with other mics, or they can get gritty too close. But a great sleep mic would be a used multipattern Beyerdynamic MC 740, or the cardiod only version MC834. The MC740 does M/S very very well, and it's a great vocal mic as well. Will Miho NY TV/Audio Post/Music/Live Sound Guy "The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits |
|
#50
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
best all purpose mic for $400-900
"Roger Norman" wrote:
"Roy W. Rising" wrote in message ... So ... INAUDIBLE distortion, something we DO NOT hear, contributes to what we DO hear? Look! Up in the sky! It's a bird! It's a plane! It's ... the sky! This is about one of the most inane responses I've seen on this newsgroup in years. My my! Thanks for the kudos! Of course inaudible distortion contributes to what we DO hear. How can you even write this dribble? Let's try the intelligent approach. Have you heard about the camera that equals gigapixels of resolution? People 5 miles away at the Grand Canyon could be enlarged to a 5 foot photo and you could read the time on a man's watch. The article (with accompanying pictures and blowups of small portions) was in Popular Science maybe 5 months ago, but here's a place to begin. http://www.cliffordross.com/R1/gigapixel.html The idea is that there's no distortion within the range of the camera's resolution in comparison to cheaper methods of making photos, so yes, we do see more because there's less resolution distortion. And the same goes for mic pres that don't produce audible noise at a given gain as opposed to those that do. Somehow I think you won't pay attention in class though. -- Roger W. Norman SirMusic Studio "Is our children learning yet?" George W. Bush http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/ Your political position notwithstanding, ... Let's see ... just because I can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there. OK. Nonetheless, I CAN'T SEE IT! And ... distortion I CAN'T HEAR cannot corrupt (or "improve") that which I CAN hear. It just doesn't work that way. The tree that falls when no one's there nonetheless makes a sound. However, from whense the class excluded by "no one" listens, it makes no sound. -- ~ Roy "It's NOT the mic, it's NOT the preamp!" |
|
#51
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
best all purpose mic for $400-900
Roy W. Rising wrote:
hank alrich wrote: Roy W. Rising wrote: Audition one of Grant Carpenter's Gordon Electronics preamps. It made clean pres sound much less clean in comparison. Info at: http://www.gordonaudio.com/ I looked at the Gordon link. NO distortion spec. I guess they don't have any. Since others say that can't be so, someone is mistaken. http://www.gordonaudio.com/specs.htm Most complete set of pre specs I've found on the web. Even temp spec'd. I looked again. Still NO DISTORTION SPECS. I maintain that any preamp with audible distortion is being abused. Unless, of course, that's what you want. And then, I guess you want the more expensive "less annoying" distortion rather than the less expensive more annoying distortion. There is no perfect signal path. Even sans abuse, a pre's distortion products contribute to what we hear, or do not hear. So ... INAUDIBLE distortion, something we DO NOT hear, contributes to what we DO hear? Look! Up in the sky! It's a bird! It's a plane! It's ... the sky! Tell me how you separate the inherent distortion from the source signal? Once the tea is in the water, what is the taste of the water? I don't think you appreciate how good the broadcast gear you used really was. g -- ha "Iraq" is Arabic for "Vietnam" |
|
#52
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
best all purpose mic for $400-900
Roy W. Rising wrote:
I guess it comes down to this: What, *exactly*, will a high-end preamplifier do that the chips in lower cost mixers will not? Well Roy, why do *you* think people design micpres that use more components and have more complex designs than the IC's you find in a Behringer? Transformers, tubes, and discreet components do cost money you know. A micpre could use a discrete semiconductor, vacuum tube, integrated circuit, or hybrid design; but I think there are strengths and drawbacks to most every design. And some designers are considered to be, well "Rock Stars" I guess, because of their creative designs and/or good taste. Sometimes a certain design will interact with a particular microphone better. Many have practically experienced that Behringer and Mackie micepres, which are electronically balanced, interact with Shure SM57's and Neumann U87's in a very unflattering way. The loading causes the mics to perform less than optimally. These mics were designed when transformered micspre were the norm and they work well with transfomered pres. You could say this is not the micpre's fault I guess, but 6 of one half dozen of the other. Or you could use a C1 and be quoted in a recording mag saying that it sounds better than a Neumann. Some good micpres use transformers, and good transformers are expensive, one can save money by not using them. Some good micpres do not use transformers, Millennia HV-3's are for example balanced all the way through and are not single ended anywhere. But to work optimally with a ribbon mic, you get them modded. Specs like gain, noise, frequency response, common mode rejection, THD, slew rate, and phase response are important of course. But just because something looks good on paper doesn't mean it sounds any good. "The proof is in the eating", as they say... Will Miho NY TV/Audio Post/Music/Live Sound Guy "The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits |
|
#53
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
best all purpose mic for $400-900
"Roy W. Rising" wrote in message
... Your political position notwithstanding, ... Let's see ... just because I can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there. OK. Nonetheless, I CAN'T SEE IT! And ... distortion I CAN'T HEAR cannot corrupt (or "improve") that which I CAN hear. It just doesn't work that way. The tree that falls when no one's there nonetheless makes a sound. However, from whense the class excluded by "no one" listens, it makes no sound. Well, since you want to get into the philosophical, I'd suggest watching What The BLEEP Do We Know? In the world of the Observer, only that observed can be seen or heard clearly, and yet without observation, the facts still remain the facts. -- Roger W. Norman SirMusic Studio "Is our children learning yet?" George W. Bush http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/ "Roger Norman" wrote: "Roy W. Rising" wrote in message ... So ... INAUDIBLE distortion, something we DO NOT hear, contributes to what we DO hear? Look! Up in the sky! It's a bird! It's a plane! It's ... the sky! This is about one of the most inane responses I've seen on this newsgroup in years. My my! Thanks for the kudos! Of course inaudible distortion contributes to what we DO hear. How can you even write this dribble? Let's try the intelligent approach. Have you heard about the camera that equals gigapixels of resolution? People 5 miles away at the Grand Canyon could be enlarged to a 5 foot photo and you could read the time on a man's watch. The article (with accompanying pictures and blowups of small portions) was in Popular Science maybe 5 months ago, but here's a place to begin. http://www.cliffordross.com/R1/gigapixel.html The idea is that there's no distortion within the range of the camera's resolution in comparison to cheaper methods of making photos, so yes, we do see more because there's less resolution distortion. And the same goes for mic pres that don't produce audible noise at a given gain as opposed to those that do. Somehow I think you won't pay attention in class though. -- Roger W. Norman SirMusic Studio "Is our children learning yet?" George W. Bush http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/ -- ~ Roy "It's NOT the mic, it's NOT the preamp!" |
|
#54
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
best all purpose mic for $400-900
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 12:10:36 -0500, Roy W. Rising wrote
(in article ): (hank alrich) wrote: Roy W. Rising wrote: "mcnews" wrote: guess that does make sense. i'll head over to atlanta pro audio next week for a demo. A "Fool and his money" are soon to be parted. It's sad. Roy, the guy wants to drop $900 on a mic. I ask you again, have _you_ ever used an RNP? I have, and compared it to both low end (Mackie original 1202), middling (Mackie Onyx) and very good (Millennia and Great River MP2-MH) preamps. The Mackies were not in the running, at all. Neither are the pres in my A&H 2200. Why spend twice the cost of a decent preamp on a mic that one will then connect to a truly mediocre preamp? Please explain how that makes sense. An RNP is half his budget. I may have saved him almost half a grand. When you were mixing for bigtime broadcast, how many Mackies were in the suite? How many Behringers? I guess it comes down to this: What, *exactly*, will a high-end preamplifier do that the chips in lower cost mixers will not? I do not refer to the added bells and whistles plus booster and/or line amplifier that comes with the package ... just the preamplifier. Nor do I refer to a few dB difference in noise or dynamic range, or a few microseconds difference in transient response. So that would be a "no?" 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 |
|
#55
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
best all purpose mic for $400-900
"Roger Norman" wrote:
Well, since you want to get into the philosophical, I'd suggest watching What The BLEEP Do We Know? In the world of the Observer, only that observed can be seen or heard clearly, and yet without observation, the facts still remain the facts. -- Roger W. Norman SirMusic Studio "Is our children learning yet?" George W. Bush http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/ In fact, I have not entered the realm of the philosophical. If something can't be heard or seen, what bearing does it have on that which can? The "fact" you imply ... acceptable audio distortion, which exists albeit "unobserved" (more correctly unheard)... remains ... well ... acceptable. -- ~ Roy "It's NOT the mic, it's NOT the preamp!" |
|
#56
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
best all purpose mic for $400-900
"WillStG" wrote:
Roy W. Rising wrote: I guess it comes down to this: What, *exactly*, will a high-end preamplifier do that the chips in lower cost mixers will not? Sometimes a certain design will interact with a particular microphone better. Many have practically experienced that Behringer and Mackie micepres, which are electronically balanced, interact with Shure SM57's and Neumann U87's in a very unflattering way. The loading causes the mics to perform less than optimally. These mics were designed when transformered micspre were the norm and they work well with transfomered pres. You could say this is not the micpre's fault I guess, but 6 of one half dozen of the other. Will Miho NY TV/Audio Post/Music/Live Sound Guy "The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits Thank you. You have made my point. The truth about obsolescent microphones that require "special" loading is revealed by the more honest NON-loading of a high quality modern preamp. After all, isn't verity, accuracy, fidelity ... truth ... what it's all about? At the other end of the spectrum, a near-zero source impedance power amplifier "manages" a loudspeakder more effectively than a transformer coupled tube amp with its inherent impedance aberations. Hence, the better loudspeaker's quality is revealed without the need for critical source-load matching to avoid "unflattering" results. -- ~ Roy "It's NOT the mic, it's NOT the preamp!" |
|
#57
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
best all purpose mic for $400-900
|
|
#58
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
best all purpose mic for $400-900
Ty Ford wrote:
When you were mixing for bigtime broadcast, how many Mackies were in the suite? How many Behringers? I guess it comes down to this: What, *exactly*, will a high-end preamplifier do that the chips in lower cost mixers will not? I do not refer to the added bells and whistles plus booster and/or line amplifier that comes with the package ... just the preamplifier. Nor do I refer to a few dB difference in noise or dynamic range, or a few microseconds difference in transient response. So that would be a "no?" Ty Ford Not as much a "no" as an incentive to think about the real nuts and bolts of audio electronics. -- ~ Roy "It's NOT the mic, it's NOT the preamp!" |
|
#59
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
best all purpose mic for $400-900
On 21 Jan 2007 04:11:54 GMT, Roy W. Rising
wrote: Yesteryear's gear was as good as could be. Today's gear is better by default. Today's movies are better by default? Today's music is... Well, like that. Stuff's cheaper today, which is good, mostly. But not all of it is as good as it could be, 'cause it doesn't have to be anymore. Much thanks, as always, Chris Hornbeck "History consists of truths which in the end turn into lies, while myth consists of lies which finally turn into truths." - Jean Cocteau |
|
#60
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
best all purpose mic for $400-900
Chris Hornbeck wrote:
On 21 Jan 2007 04:11:54 GMT, Roy W. Rising wrote: Yesteryear's gear was as good as could be. Today's gear is better by default. Today's movies are better by default? Today's music is... Well, like that. Stuff's cheaper today, which is good, mostly. But not all of it is as good as it could be, 'cause it doesn't have to be anymore. Much thanks, as always, Chris Hornbeck Invalid analogies. Moore's law is more applicable with regard to audio gear. -- ~ Roy "It's NOT the mic, it's NOT the preamp!" |
|
#61
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
best all purpose mic for $400-900
Roy W. Rising wrote:
I maintain that any preamp with audible distortion is being abused. Unless, of course, that's what you want. And then, I guess you want the more expensive "less annoying" distortion rather than the less expensive more annoying distortion. Take a good clean signal, run it into a 40 dB pad. Put it into your chosen preamp with the preamp set for 40 dB gain, then flip between the original signal and the preamp output. You'll be able to tell the difference between the two. With the Millennia HV-3, it takes some careful listening to tell the difference at 60 dB, and I am not sure I could tell the difference on my monitors at 40 dB. I bet I could tell on Trutone's monitors. With the ART Tube MP, you could tell the difference on Auratones, listening from the next room. The straightwire test is always very, very interesting and reveals just how colored realworld preamplifiers are. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#62
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
best all purpose mic for $400-900
Roy W. Rising wrote:
Thank you. You have made my point. The truth about obsolescent microphones that require "special" loading is revealed by the more honest NON-loading of a high quality modern preamp. After all, isn't verity, accuracy, fidelity ... truth ... what it's all about? My friend, audio lesson #1 is that all audio is by *definition* - "distortion". Nothing you record is "the truth" itself, everything you record is a mere reflection in a mirror dimly of what "the truth" was. And art is beauty after all, so really - and I digress - but how does listening to the recording make you _feel_? Does it make you feel what you were feeling when you witnessed the musical event? Why do some people call certain recordings "clinical"? Could not a recording be more "true" if it had an emotional impact closer to the listening experience at the moment it occured, would that not be a truer reflection on the emotional level, closer to "true beauty"? In any event, you asked what is different about expensive micpres. They usually sound better. More compelling. They involve the listener more, They can reveal more of the source to the listener, they can have more dimensionality, more depth, richer color, be more liquid, more vivid, and many other things merre specs cannot describe. With the right microphone of course. Specs do not tell the whole story, certainly micpres with virtually identical specs can sound totally different. Our ears can discern qualities far more subtle than published specs reflect. Hey, you can be developing cancer before it shows up in modern tests as well. And the Mackie and Behringer preamps you call "high quality modern preamps" certainly DO in fact present a load to a microphone. The way devices interact can be a good thing if you know what is going on, or a bad thing if you don't. This hardly renders entirely usable top of the line but older mics obsolete. Many of these mics are still prefered day in and out by longtime professionals who enjoy success at least as great as that which has shaped your opinions. And sadly, your tone suggests you have little respect for such people and consider yourself their superior. I really don't get the impression you have done much comparitive listening, I get the impression your intellectual preconceptions (as opposed to sensitive comparisons) are "coloring" your viewpoint. Maybe buy some test cds and compare how different converters, mics and micpres sound. Or if if you can hear it at all. http://www.mercenary.com/3daudio.html Or test your listening environment with some of these - http://www.chesky.com/core/productli...e=Test%20Discs I love the LEDR tests on the Chesky Test Vol.1. Or read "Drawing on the right side of the brain" By Betty Edwards for practical excersises that show clearly the effect intellectual preconceptions (the left brain's domain) has on our ability to create an image as it actually presents itself. When we learn to "see" as things are, rather than as we believe them to be, we become better artists (here's a few before and after examples of people's drawings, and practicing this disclipline for 5 days.) http://www.drawright.com/gallery.htm A cross-discliplinary paradigm, if you will. Will Miho NY TV/Audio Post/Music/Live Sound Guy "The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits |
|
#63
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
best all purpose mic for $400-900
Roy W. Rising wrote:
Would a cheap preamp with a THD+N spec of 0.01% be OK ... in the "acceptable distortion region"? Or must it be lower, given that the general population considers THD below 0.7% "acceptable" (Tremaine)? Depends on the spectrum. If third harmonic is dominant, 0.7% is probably just fine. If sixth and eighth harmonic is dominant, 0.01% is probably way too much. Unfortunately this is the problem with a scalar THD number; it doesn't correlate well with audibility and so it's really only useful for comparing equipment of similar topology and devices. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#64
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
best all purpose mic for $400-900
Roger Norman wrote:
Yep. One only has to hook up a 57 with a Hardy M1 with Jensen 990s to find an amazing microphone hidden deep in the 57. I don't know, but I believe Mark may have decided to go after a superb 57 sound due to the fact that most Mackie products don't do the mic justice. For a small fee, McQ makes the 57 viable in a lot of studio and live situations. I don't know how Shure did it what with most early 57s being pumped into Shure Vocalmasters and little Bogens, but the mic certainly has more soul than most people will know with the average mic pre these days. Those Vocalmasters were pretty crappy, but they presented the SM-57 with about the right load that they expect.... something around 600 ohms and slightly inductive. Folks forget that everything, even the crappiest equipment from that era, all used input transformers. That makes a big difference with the SM-57. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#65
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
best all purpose mic for $400-900
On 21 Jan 2007 05:01:25 GMT, Roy W. Rising
wrote: Stuff's cheaper today, which is good, mostly. But not all of it is as good as it could be, 'cause it doesn't have to be anymore. Invalid analogies. Moore's law is more applicable with regard to audio gear. Moore's law only applies in a very specific context, where fixed costs totally dominate and where the market is saturated. A ten year old computer (like mine!) is worthless today. A ten year old microphone is just developing its bar tan. Ten year old electronics might be either way. Folks will have gotten a handle on its performance and reliability and some anecdotal history will have evolved. Some things age faster, some are just a POS out-of-box and some are treasures. But it's a fluid market, and based on perceived value. Maybe the thing that I can't agree with is that recording hardware is at the computer rather than at the microphone end of the spectrum.... yet(! Arf.) Much thanks, as always, Chris Hornbeck "History consists of truths which in the end turn into lies, while myth consists of lies which finally turn into truths." - Jean Cocteau |
|
#66
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
best all purpose mic for $400-900
Roy W. Rising wrote:
Ty Ford wrote: When you were mixing for bigtime broadcast, how many Mackies were in the suite? How many Behringers? I guess it comes down to this: What, *exactly*, will a high-end preamplifier do that the chips in lower cost mixers will not? I do not refer to the added bells and whistles plus booster and/or line amplifier that comes with the package ... just the preamplifier. Nor do I refer to a few dB difference in noise or dynamic range, or a few microseconds difference in transient response. So that would be a "no?" Ty Ford Not as much a "no" as an incentive to think about the real nuts and bolts of audio electronics. I don't talk about mixing for television broadcast, because I have never done that. I've mixed a bunch of SR, lots of live recording, and some stuff straight to radio, from the stage at AWHQ to KLBJ-FM in Austin TX. But you're talking about how a Mackie preamp sounds versus an RNP. I ask again, have you actually run those side by side? If so, could you please convey your experience with that? -- ha "Iraq" is Arabic for "Vietnam" |
|
#67
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
best all purpose mic for $400-900
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 23:18:06 -0500, Roy W. Rising wrote
(in article ): Ty Ford wrote: When you were mixing for bigtime broadcast, how many Mackies were in the suite? How many Behringers? I guess it comes down to this: What, *exactly*, will a high-end preamplifier do that the chips in lower cost mixers will not? I do not refer to the added bells and whistles plus booster and/or line amplifier that comes with the package ... just the preamplifier. Nor do I refer to a few dB difference in noise or dynamic range, or a few microseconds difference in transient response. So that would be a "no?" Ty Ford Not as much a "no" as an incentive to think about the real nuts and bolts of audio electronics. I am fascinated by sociological studies that indicate that people in the US have great difficulty saying, "no." One of the best things I learned in my first marriage was that I could say "I don't know" with impunity. The freedom that resulted from that awareness made my digestion and bowels move much better. Don't know why this occured to me. 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 |
|
#68
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
best all purpose mic for $400-900
On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 00:58:54 -0500, Chris Hornbeck wrote
(in article ): On 21 Jan 2007 05:01:25 GMT, Roy W. Rising wrote: Stuff's cheaper today, which is good, mostly. But not all of it is as good as it could be, 'cause it doesn't have to be anymore. Invalid analogies. Moore's law is more applicable with regard to audio gear. Moore's law only applies in a very specific context, where fixed costs totally dominate and where the market is saturated. A ten year old computer (like mine!) is worthless today. A ten year old microphone is just developing its bar tan. Ten year old electronics might be either way. Folks will have gotten a handle on its performance and reliability and some anecdotal history will have evolved. Some things age faster, some are just a POS out-of-box and some are treasures. But it's a fluid market, and based on perceived value. Maybe the thing that I can't agree with is that recording hardware is at the computer rather than at the microphone end of the spectrum.... yet(! Arf.) Much thanks, as always, Chris Hornbeck "Arf!", said Sandy. Just had a guitar player in yesterday who was amazed by my 1964-5 Fender Vibrolux. I had a good tube guy work it over about two years ago and put new glass in it. It's solid as a rock and apparently worth almost $2k to the right buyer. (Yes, it still has the red power light jewel.) I think I remember paying about $250 for it used back in the late 60s. I think I paid about $250 to have it overhauled. It was sounding pretty funky (not a good funky) before I took it in for refurbishing. It's nice that one can maintain something like that and have it continue to provide good service while it appreciates. 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 |
|
#69
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
best all purpose mic for $400-900
Roy W. Rising wrote:
Yesteryear's gear was as good as could be. Today's gear is better by default. Sadly not, because there is a degree of cost-containment engineering that goes on today, that was never seen before. In addition, there is a lot of gear today that is far more sophisticated and therefore has more problems. For example, the gain blocks in the SSL consoles are a lot cleaner than anything Ward-Beck ever made... but whereas in an old Ward-Beck console you might have three or four gain stages in the 2-buss signal path with the EQ bypassed, with the SSL you can wind up with literally a thousand gain blocks between input and output... and a block that has minimal coloration turns into a serious problem when you chain a thousand of them together. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#70
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
best all purpose mic for $400-900
"Roger Norman" wrote ...
Roger W. Norman SirMusic Studio "Is our children learning yet?" George W. Bush "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is". William J. Clinton |
|
#71
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
best all purpose mic for $400-900
"Roger Norman" wrote ...
Roger W. Norman SirMusic Studio "Is our children learning yet?" George W. Bush "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is." William J. Clinton |
|
#72
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
best all purpose mic for $400-900
"Roger Norman" wrote ...
Roger W. Norman SirMusic Studio "Is our children learning yet?" George W. Bush "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is." William J. Clinton |
|
#73
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
best all purpose mic for $400-900
"Roger Norman" wrote ...
Roger W. Norman SirMusic Studio "Is our children learning yet?" George W. Bush "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is." William J. Clinton |
|
#74
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
best all purpose mic for $400-900
"Roger Norman" wrote ...
Roger W. Norman SirMusic Studio "Is our children learning yet?" George W. Bush "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is." William J. Clinton |
|
#75
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
best all purpose mic for $400-900
"Chris Hornbeck" wrote ...
Moore's law only applies in a very specific context, where fixed costs totally dominate and where the market is saturated. That is an extraordinarily narrow view. The effect is seen almost everywhere. The global economy is one result of it. |
|
#76
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
best all purpose mic for $400-900
"Richard Crowley" wrote in message ... "Roger Norman" wrote ... Roger W. Norman SirMusic Studio "Is our children learning yet?" George W. Bush "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is." William J. Clinton You're right. There's an enormous intellectual gap between the two. |
|
#77
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
best all purpose mic for $400-900
very true. i it has happened to me a lot.
Roger Norman wrote: "WillStG" wrote in message ups.com... Because out on that "desert island" with only a couple of mics to choose from at one time or another, they made the things work and have gotten good results. Welp, as a friend says "the last mic in the closet is ALWAYS the RIGHT mic". |
|
#78
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
best all purpose mic for $400-900
Roy W. Rising wrote:
Chris Hornbeck wrote: On 21 Jan 2007 04:11:54 GMT, Roy W. Rising wrote: Yesteryear's gear was as good as could be. Today's gear is better by default. Today's movies are better by default? Today's music is... Well, like that. Stuff's cheaper today, which is good, mostly. But not all of it is as good as it could be, 'cause it doesn't have to be anymore. Much thanks, as always, Chris Hornbeck Invalid analogies. Moore's law is more applicable with regard to audio gear. Not so much; no. Moore's law applies to systems with large numbers of gates - where something with dozens or so of things in the parts list, like a preamp, are increasingly being moved *away* from in the marketplace. The RNCompressor uses a DSP, so it benefeits from Moore's Law, but audio gear that is not microprocessor based does not. And the principal tachnology influencing microphones is containerization. -- Les Cargill |
|
#79
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
best all purpose mic for $400-900
Richard Crowley wrote:
"Chris Hornbeck" wrote ... Moore's law only applies in a very specific context, where fixed costs totally dominate and where the market is saturated. That is an extraordinarily narrow view. The effect is seen almost everywhere. The global economy is one result of it. I don't know of anty serious work widening the scope of Moore's Law beyond the cost/count of transistors in integrated circuits. -- Les Cargill |
|
#80
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
best all purpose mic for $400-900
"Roy W. Rising" wrote in message
... Stuff's cheaper today, which is good, mostly. But not all of it is as good as it could be, 'cause it doesn't have to be anymore. Much thanks, as always, Chris Hornbeck Invalid analogies. Moore's law is more applicable with regard to audio gear. Except it ain't. What has happened is *not* that gear of equivalent quality has gotten cheaper. What has happened, instead, is that -- with respect to the microphone preamps that were the start of this discussion -- a market has developed for cheap, not-so-good gear that wasn't there before. (Digital converters are a whole 'nother discussion. Your argument has a lot more validity there.) Good gear still isn't cheap, although there are a very few products out there which deliver unusually high value for money, like the RNP. But the cheap Mackie, ART and Behringer gear is still, mostly, junk, and sounds like it. Peace, Paul |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| What's the purpose of the test tone in a video? | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
