"...the differences between the "classic albums that were recorded and
mixed on the
same console" and the Pro-sTools/Auto-Tuned-Lord-Alge/SSL-Marcussen Mastering
type "loudness above audio" stylings we are subjected to today"

Fletcher,

Tom Lord-Alge is more a victim of excessive compression then "Loudness
above audio." He does not make records too loud, that falls usually
in the hands of the mastering engineer. I am not the biggest fan of
Lord-Alge's work, but he is great at putting a vocal in your face. It
helps boost the impact of the emotion when the vocal is well
preformed. When you have a great singer(attitude-wise), like a Mick
Jagger, it is even better to put the vocal on the listeners lap. That
is the kind of thing he does.

You have d*&kheads on this group that complain, "OHH I saw Cris
Cornell live and he was flat most of the time...." That is why we
have auto-tune and we are forced to use it. Because of the same
engine you oil. So don't blast what you help make a standard. People
on this group(not all) have criticized pitch so much, they forgot
about emotion. That is why a great performance is forced to be on the
center of the note now to be passable. That is B.S. That is the
newsgroup/world we live in.

Records today don't sound terrible across the board, and I
would like you to acknowledge that. I can record something to pro
tools HD in my home studio and I'd bet my last dollar that you would
not know that it wasn't done on tape the old fashion way. I can even
simulate the hiss for you if you like that sort of thing.


The difference between "classic albums" is more in the artists and the
moment then the stupid equipment. The way records sound is like
fashion, they go through changes. When something works for the time,
it works. When people get into something new, the engineers will
follow. Thus, when a true artist comes in and only worries about
performing, they are not as good for having a loud possibly
over-compressed record??? give me a break dude.

Ohh, and the whole statement you made that I am responding to....
it is a load of crap. The great "classic records" you are loosely
referring to were not at all great due to the gear. The Beatles could
have done Abbey Road on a mackie, and you know what, it would still be
amazing. Marvin Gaye could sing "What's Going On?" through a sm57
into a mackie with spider webs and it would still be great. Same with
many of today's singers. Records are deeper then which buttons they
turned.-Kris Singh

In resonse to the original post.......

I would check out the Neumann m147, if vocals is you primary use. If
budgets allows, check the M149. Great mics!! Good luck!!!





Fletcher wrote in message ...
EggHd wrote:

There is no ONE mic or mic pre to suit all
situations.

It makes you wonder how all the classic albums we hear recorded and mixed on
the same console sound so good. This only addresses the mic pre issue.


Uhhh, no... it addresses the entire production issue. The "classic albums we
hear recorded and mixed on the same console" were arranged a bit differently
than albums are arranged today... they were recorded in rooms that were far and
away better than 99.9987% of the recording rooms that exist today... with far
better microphone collections than generally exist today.

Consoles of that period also had far better sonic qualities than the consoles of
today... so your mic pre point is pretty ****in moot when you really add up all
the differences between the "classic albums that were recorded and mixed on the
same console" and the Pro-sTools/Auto-Tuned-Lord-Alge/SSL-Marcussen Mastering
type "loudness above audio" stylings we are subjected to today... perhaps having
a choice of pre's is one of the few ways we can actually try to subtly
differentiate our product as the 'record selling machinery' seems to be hell
bent on everything sounding "the same"