[Paul[_13_]]

http://www.swee****er.com/store/detail/C1Mic/reviews

Someone wrote, "The Studio Projects C1 is a u87 with cheap parts."

Maybe I'll get one and put in some Wimas, polystyrenes...

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 3/9/2013 7:38 PM, Paul wrote:

Someone wrote, "The Studio Projects C1 is a u87 with cheap parts."
Maybe I'll get one and put in some Wimas, polystyrenes...

That won't make as much difference as a U87 capsule and grill assembly.
The C1 is a pretty good microphone as it is. Don't muck with it.



--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[polymod]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
On 3/9/2013 7:38 PM, Paul wrote:

The C1 is a pretty good microphone as it is. Don't muck with it.

Agreed.
And the C1 coupled with the Studio Projects VTB1 preamp make a great pair.

Poly

[Paul[_13_]]

On 3/9/2013 7:19 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 3/9/2013 7:38 PM, Paul wrote:

Someone wrote, "The Studio Projects C1 is a u87 with cheap parts."
Maybe I'll get one and put in some Wimas, polystyrenes...

That won't make as much difference as a U87 capsule and grill assembly.
The C1 is a pretty good microphone as it is. Don't muck with it.


It must be a VERY good mic, if you read all the reviews,
many of them supposedly by professionals who are familiar with real
U-87s, and who say the C1 compares favorably...

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Paul wrote:
On 3/9/2013 7:19 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 3/9/2013 7:38 PM, Paul wrote:

Someone wrote, "The Studio Projects C1 is a u87 with cheap parts."
Maybe I'll get one and put in some Wimas, polystyrenes...

That won't make as much difference as a U87 capsule and grill assembly.
The C1 is a pretty good microphone as it is. Don't muck with it.


It must be a VERY good mic, if you read all the reviews,
many of them supposedly by professionals who are familiar with real
U-87s, and who say the C1 compares favorably...

Where do you get these weird ideas?

In the case of strongly-colored microphones like the U87, which mike is
"better" is entirely a judgement call because none of them are neutral
or designed to be neutral.

Personally, I don't really like the U87 that much, so I would say that
a lot of inexpensive microphones compare favorably to it. But, someone
who likes the way the U87 and who is used to certain techniques that
depend on the U87 coloration won't agree.

I will say that none of the U87 clones really sound like a U87. Whether
this is a good thing or a bad thing is entirely a judgement call.
--scott

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

[Paul[_13_]]

On 3/10/2013 11:42 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Paul wrote:
On 3/9/2013 7:19 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 3/9/2013 7:38 PM, Paul wrote:

Someone wrote, "The Studio Projects C1 is a u87 with cheap parts."
Maybe I'll get one and put in some Wimas, polystyrenes...

That won't make as much difference as a U87 capsule and grill assembly.
The C1 is a pretty good microphone as it is. Don't muck with it.


It must be a VERY good mic, if you read all the reviews,
many of them supposedly by professionals who are familiar with real
U-87s, and who say the C1 compares favorably...

Where do you get these weird ideas?


Where do you get the weird idea I'm being weird?

There's some consensus that the U-87 is
a damn good microphone, so if people say a mic compares
favorably, I'm gonna be interested. Hell yes I'm gonna
read what other buyers think about a product before I
plunk down another $250. I don't trust Consumer Reports,
or any other bull**** like that....I trust REAL buyers,
who have spent serious time with the product, which is not
something you can try out in an hour at Guitar Center.



In the case of strongly-colored microphones like the U87, which mike is
"better" is entirely a judgement call because none of them are neutral
or designed to be neutral.

Personally, I don't really like the U87 that much, so I would say that
a lot of inexpensive microphones compare favorably to it. But, someone
who likes the way the U87 and who is used to certain techniques that
depend on the U87 coloration won't agree.

I will say that none of the U87 clones really sound like a U87. Whether
this is a good thing or a bad thing is entirely a judgement call.

YOU MEAN NOT ALL PROFESSIONALS LOVE THE U-87??!!?? SHOCKING!!

Well, it's good to hear professionals disagree with the
U-87 hype. I've read much about the variations from one "real" U-87
to another, so each mic is unique anyways.

I should really test out a real U-87, to see if I like
it personally, before I plunk down $400 and a whole lot
of labor to build a clone, but I love electronics, so I
might just build it anyway, for the knowledge and enjoyment, and
then sell in on Ebay..... :/

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Paul wrote:
On 3/10/2013 11:42 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

Where do you get these weird ideas?

Where do you get the weird idea I'm being weird?

Because you keep coming out of left field with all this weirdness.

There's some consensus that the U-87 is
a damn good microphone, so if people say a mic compares
favorably, I'm gonna be interested.

There was a day, long long ago, when the U-87 was intended as a general
purpose microphone. A lot of effort was put into making it as uncolored
as possible.

Technology has changed, but the U-87 has not. With far less-colored
microphones around today, the reason people continue using the U-87 is
because they like the colorations of the microphone.

Because of that, the U-87 has become a special-purpose tool. If you are
doing the sort of thing that requires that tool, it's a tool too look into.
If you are doing something else, it is not a tool to look into.

Saying some other microphone "compares favorably" is like saying that an
apple is better than an orange. If you want apple pie, it's an improvement
but if you're trying to make orange juice, it is not.

Hell yes I'm gonna
read what other buyers think about a product before I
plunk down another $250. I don't trust Consumer Reports,
or any other bull**** like that....I trust REAL buyers,
who have spent serious time with the product, which is not
something you can try out in an hour at Guitar Center.

I hate to tell you this, but when it all comes down to it, you have to
trust your ears. Nobody on the internet can tell you what is good and
what is bad. You have to use your ears and start thinking for yourself.

Well, it's good to hear professionals disagree with the
U-87 hype. I've read much about the variations from one "real" U-87
to another, so each mic is unique anyways.

No, actually, the U-87 is pretty consistent.... the original version with
the battery and meter is a little different, but if you pick two off the
line they pretty much sound like one another.

Which is something that cannot be said about the U-47.

I should really test out a real U-87, to see if I like
it personally, before I plunk down $400 and a whole lot
of labor to build a clone, but I love electronics, so I
might just build it anyway, for the knowledge and enjoyment, and
then sell in on Ebay..... :/

I suggest you spend a couple afternoons in a real studio with real microphones
and get a sense of what most of the studio standards sound like. By all means
you should try playing with a U87, but you should also play with a couple
414 variants, some 421L dynamics, and even get a sense of how the SM-57 can
sound when you change the loading around on it. You will get far more
information from using your ears than listening to reviews from random
people on the internet.
--scott


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

[Paul[_13_]]

On 3/10/2013 12:57 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Paul wrote:
On 3/10/2013 11:42 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

Where do you get these weird ideas?

Where do you get the weird idea I'm being weird?

Because you keep coming out of left field with all this weirdness.


Weird has always been Normal.


There's some consensus that the U-87 is
a damn good microphone, so if people say a mic compares
favorably, I'm gonna be interested.

There was a day, long long ago, when the U-87 was intended as a general
purpose microphone. A lot of effort was put into making it as uncolored
as possible.

Technology has changed, but the U-87 has not. With far less-colored
microphones around today, the reason people continue using the U-87 is
because they like the colorations of the microphone.

Because of that, the U-87 has become a special-purpose tool. If you are
doing the sort of thing that requires that tool, it's a tool too look into.
If you are doing something else, it is not a tool to look into.

Saying some other microphone "compares favorably" is like saying that an
apple is better than an orange. If you want apple pie, it's an improvement
but if you're trying to make orange juice, it is not.

Hell yes I'm gonna
read what other buyers think about a product before I
plunk down another $250. I don't trust Consumer Reports,
or any other bull**** like that....I trust REAL buyers,
who have spent serious time with the product, which is not
something you can try out in an hour at Guitar Center.

I hate to tell you this, but when it all comes down to it, you have to
trust your ears. Nobody on the internet can tell you what is good and
what is bad. You have to use your ears and start thinking for yourself.


I agree with you, but I would never have bought the MCA SP-1
if many people didn't recommend it both here and on other forums.
It was also my first microphone mod, and I didn't really believe
the improvements better components would bring, but they were real for
my ears, and now I'm expecting a new capsule in the mail, and again,
this was all on the advice of others.....so far they have been right.

Just because a restaurant is packed, doesn't guarantee I'll
like the food....but I'll try it once.....



Well, it's good to hear professionals disagree with the
U-87 hype. I've read much about the variations from one "real" U-87
to another, so each mic is unique anyways.

No, actually, the U-87 is pretty consistent.... the original version with
the battery and meter is a little different, but if you pick two off the
line they pretty much sound like one another.

Which is something that cannot be said about the U-47.

I should really test out a real U-87, to see if I like
it personally, before I plunk down $400 and a whole lot
of labor to build a clone, but I love electronics, so I
might just build it anyway, for the knowledge and enjoyment, and
then sell in on Ebay..... :/

I suggest you spend a couple afternoons in a real studio with real microphones
and get a sense of what most of the studio standards sound like. By all means
you should try playing with a U87, but you should also play with a couple
414 variants, some 421L dynamics, and even get a sense of how the SM-57 can
sound when you change the loading around on it. You will get far more
information from using your ears than listening to reviews from random
people on the internet.
--scott

I plan on doing that.....

[PStamler]

On Saturday, March 9, 2013 6:38:52 PM UTC-6, Paul wrote:
http://www.swee****er.com/store/detail/C1Mic/reviews



Someone wrote, "The Studio Projects C1 is a u87 with cheap parts."



Maybe I'll get one and put in some Wimas, polystyrenes...

[PStamler]

On Sunday, March 10, 2013 4:38:28 PM UTC-5, Paul wrote:
On 3/10/2013 12:57 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

I suggest you spend a couple afternoons in a real studio with real microphones

and get a sense of what most of the studio standards sound like. By all means

you should try playing with a U87, but you should also play with a couple

414 variants, some 421L dynamics, and even get a sense of how the SM-57 can

sound when you change the loading around on it. You will get far more

information from using your ears than listening to reviews from random

people on the internet.

--scott


And Paul wrote:

I plan on doing that.....

It will be time and money well spent.

While you're at it, see if you can hear, in the same studio, the Neumann TLM 102 and the Microtech Gefell M930. The 102, for $800, beats the bejasus out of anything I've heard for under a grand on most sources; I think it makes a lot of mic mods obsolete, because it'll outperform them and doesn't cost that much more than the mic+mod it's beating.

And the M930 is one of my favorite microphones, period. In most applications I like it a lot more than the U 87, and it's half the price. Yes, it's cardioid only, and if I needed the variable pattern I guess I'd bite the bullet and get a bank loan and a U 87. But I don't really need the other patterns, and I'd rather have a top-notch cardioid than a second-rate multipattern mic.

Also, there is *no* mic that's the best on everything. For mandolins my go-to mic is a Neumann Km 84, no question. But I play in a band with a guy whose mandolin sounds better on an Oktava MC012 than on a KM 84. That's how life is sometimes; I'm keeping my KM 84s for other people's mandos, flutes, etc. But on his mando, no.

Similarly there are people whose voices don't sound all that good on an M930; overall, it's my favorite mic, but not for everything or everybody.

Peace,
Paul Stamler

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 3/10/2013 3:16 PM, Paul wrote:
Well, it's good to hear professionals disagree with the
U-87 hype. I've read much about the variations from one "real" U-87
to another, so each mic is unique anyways.

There will always be someone that you will think is "professional"
(there's hype about that too) who will say something nice about just
about any mic. That's what you get when you take your information from
the Internet and don't actually know anything about the details from
your own experience, or from learning the principles so you can draw
your own conclusions.

I don't believe that Studio Projects ever intended for the C1 to be a
U87 clone. How can it be? It has a single diaphragm capsule and the U87
has a dual diaphragm capsule. The U87's grill assembly is shaped
differently. The U87 has an output transformer.

Anyone who says it compares favorably to a U87 probably means something
like "if I thought a U87 would work here, I tried a C1 and got
satisfactory results." That's a different kind of "compares favorably"
than a carefully controlled A/B comparison on a number of different
sources.



I should really test out a real U-87, to see if I like
it personally, before I plunk down $400 and a whole lot
of labor to build a clone, but I love electronics, so I
might just build it anyway, for the knowledge and enjoyment, and
then sell in on Ebay..... :/









--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Here In Oregon]

I bought a C1 years ago, and still have it. Never use it,... ever, not even
on bad vocals. Well,...scratch that. I do use it once in a while in my
blind microphone testing that I do and most everyone with ears puts it low
on their list. Maybe it is just a bum C1.

Best *bargain* mike I ever bought was that MXL V69 tube mic with its own
power supply and its very own seven pin cable. However, this microphone kit
was the MOGAMI EDITION. g

[geoff]

"Here In Oregon" wrote in message
...
I bought a C1 years ago, and still have it. Never use it,... ever, not
even on bad vocals. Well,...scratch that. I do use it once in a while in
my blind microphone testing that I do and most everyone with ears puts it
low on their list. Maybe it is just a bum C1.

Best *bargain* mike I ever bought was that MXL V69 tube mic with its own
power supply and its very own seven pin cable. However, this microphone
kit was the MOGAMI EDITION. g

Wow, that inch or so of Mogami wire probably made a world of difference ;-)

geoff

[Doug McDonald[_6_]]

On 3/11/2013 1:53 AM, PStamler wrote:

While you're at it, see if you can hear, in the same studio, the Neumann TLM 102 and the
Microtech Gefell M930. The 102, for $800, beats the bejasus out of anything I've heard for under a
grand on most sources; I think it makes a lot of mic mods obsolete, because it'll outperform them
and doesn't cost that much more than the mic+mod it's beating.




I've always wondered .... while the above advice is obviously good, how much
does it tell about what all listeners to the product will hear? That is ...
what about the hearing of the person doing the above testing ... and deciding
on what mic to use for the recording?

Different people have different abilities to hear high frequencies, and the
same person hears worse at high frequencies as the age. I certainly would have
been a great tester and listener at age 21 when I could hear reliably to
23 kHz. But at age 68, when my hearing is dead as a doornail at 14 kHz and
not so great at 12 hHz, its would be totally silly for me to pretend
to be able to test microphones or do a high frequency balance job
on a recording. The up side of this, of course, is that botched high frequencies
no longer bother me. Except to the extent that they bother MP3 encoders of course.

Doug McDonald

[Here In Oregon]

"geoff" wrote in message
...

"Here In Oregon" wrote in message
...
I bought a C1 years ago, and still have it. Never use it,... ever, not
even on bad vocals. Well,...scratch that. I do use it once in a while in
my blind microphone testing that I do and most everyone with ears puts it
low on their list. Maybe it is just a bum C1.

Best *bargain* mike I ever bought was that MXL V69 tube mic with its own
power supply and its very own seven pin cable. However, this microphone
kit was the MOGAMI EDITION. g


Wow, that inch or so of Mogami wire probably made a world of difference
;-)

If you mean the roughly 144 inches of 7 pin Mogami cable that it came with,
I dunno if that makes the difference in this mic's sound or not.

It also has a tube and its own power supply but for a bargain priced
microphone it sounds good. You are Sir Geoff Emerick right? I can have an
opinion if your not. g

[Here In Oregon]

"Ty Ford" wrote in message
al.NET...

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 19:29:52 -0400, Here In Oregon wrote
(in article ):

I bought a C1 years ago, and still have it. Never use it,... ever, not
even
on bad vocals. Well,...scratch that. I do use it once in a while in my
blind microphone testing that I do and most everyone with ears puts it low
on their list. Maybe it is just a bum C1.

Best *bargain* mike I ever bought was that MXL V69 tube mic with its own
power supply and its very own seven pin cable. However, this microphone
kit
was the MOGAMI EDITION. g


No it's a scratchy Chinese knock off; at least the one I heard.


Around 2005 or so I heard through my network (grapevine) that these things
can vary dramatically hence your Chinese knock off comment.

However, I also heard if you can find a good one they can sound really
great. Well once upon a time this engineer I flew in brought with him an
arsenal of mics that I don't have.

We set up controlled blind tests and everybody rated it very high. I bought
it on the spot and have no regrets because it still ain't broke you see (in
my best H. Bogart voice).

I should add I don't use this mic all that often but I must admit I
sometimes like bringing up the *really controversial stuff* and then read
about what all of the curmudgeons in da room have to say and sometimes it is
a better read than watching a good 1937- 1943 circa movie.


PS: People knocking a U 87 when they have never heard one....::sigh::
It's on the internet, it must be true! Everything's true on the internet.
You
can't lie on the internet!


Huh,... you commenting to me. I record with U 87s and I haven't not knocked
them ever. No lie and it is really true.

Regards,

HIO

P. S. You have kind of a sexy voice and I am not gay. You might try some
voice over work though. g

[Doug McDonald[_8_]]

On 3/12/2013 3:31 PM, Ty Ford wrote: On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:43:30
-0400, Doug McDonald wrote
(in article ):

I've always wondered .... while the above advice is obviously good,
how much
does it tell about what all listeners to the product will hear? That
is ...
what about the hearing of the person doing the above testing ... and
deciding
on what mic to use for the recording?

Different people have different abilities to hear high frequencies,
and the
same person hears worse at high frequencies as the age. I certainly
would
have
been a great tester and listener at age 21 when I could hear reliably to
23 kHz. But at age 68, when my hearing is dead as a doornail at 14
kHz and
not so great at 12 hHz, its would be totally silly for me to pretend
to be able to test microphones or do a high frequency balance job
on a recording. The up side of this, of course, is that botched high
frequencies
no longer bother me. Except to the extent that they bother MP3
encoders of
course.

Doug McDonald

This has little to do with a professional who has been comparing mics for
years.



Well, for years I agree, unless that pro has been recording rock
concerts without the very best in ear protection.

But for decades, it very very much has to do with it.

Answer this: how can anyone meaningfully compare mics for frequency
response if they can't hear all the frequencies? Or compare anything
at high frequencies they can't hear?

Doug

[geoff]

"Here In Oregon" wrote in message
...
"geoff" wrote in message
...

"Here In Oregon" wrote in message
...
I bought a C1 years ago, and still have it. Never use it,... ever, not
even on bad vocals. Well,...scratch that. I do use it once in a while in
my blind microphone testing that I do and most everyone with ears puts it
low on their list. Maybe it is just a bum C1.

Best *bargain* mike I ever bought was that MXL V69 tube mic with its own
power supply and its very own seven pin cable. However, this microphone
kit was the MOGAMI EDITION. g


Wow, that inch or so of Mogami wire probably made a world of difference
;-)

If you mean the roughly 144 inches of 7 pin Mogami cable that it came
with, I dunno if that makes the difference in this mic's sound or not.

It also has a tube and its own power supply but for a bargain priced
microphone it sounds good. You are Sir Geoff Emerick right? I can have
an opinion if your not. g

My 603s came only with internal Mogami wire inside. Maybe that's what made
them sound like a flanger. I moved them on....


geoff

[geoff]

"Ty Ford" wrote in message
al.NET...
On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 19:29:52 -0400, Here In Oregon wrote
(in article ):

I bought a C1 years ago, and still have it. Never use it,... ever, not
even
on bad vocals. Well,...scratch that. I do use it once in a while in my
blind microphone testing that I do and most everyone with ears puts it
low
on their list. Maybe it is just a bum C1.

Best *bargain* mike I ever bought was that MXL V69 tube mic with its own
power supply and its very own seven pin cable. However, this microphone
kit
was the MOGAMI EDITION. g

No it's a scratchy Chinese knock off; at least the one I heard.

Um, a Chinese knock-off of a Chinese mic ?!!!

geoff

[Paul[_13_]]

On 3/12/2013 8:56 PM, Soundhaspriority wrote:


"Paul" wrote in message ...

http://www.swee****er.com/store/detail/C1Mic/reviews

Someone wrote, "The Studio Projects C1 is a u87 with cheap parts."

Maybe I'll get one and put in some Wimas, polystyrenes...

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

I haven't read all through this thread, but I suspect that it's another
bash at Chinese mikes. So I'll be the possibly sole dissenter. I admire
Studio Projects mikes.

Studio Projects mikes are a cut above other Chinese mikes. The C4 is a
great favorite of mine. It sounds nothing like a "guitar mike", because
the designer is an admirer of Schoeps. It is my understanding that the
sound is inspired by Schoeps.

By the designer's own statement, the Chinese capsule makers do not hold
tolerances in the same way as the vaunted European and American high end
makers. However, in my experience, this never resulted in appreciable
mike mismatches for the rooms I recorded in.

If the C1 is anything like the C4, you won't have to swap in Wimas,
because they are already there. Within the limits of price, Studio
Projects cares.

Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511


Thanks, Bob. I just might pick up a C1. Too many people have
made a buzz about it...

[Trevor]

"Doug McDonald" wrote in message
...
Answer this: how can anyone meaningfully compare mics for frequency
response if they can't hear all the frequencies? Or compare anything
at high frequencies they can't hear?

They could use a spectrum analyser for a start, then make polar response
measurements to know what to expect.
The problem I see more often is those who *think* they have have "golden
ears", and don't.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"geoff" wrote in message
...
No it's a scratchy Chinese knock off; at least the one I heard.
Um, a Chinese knock-off of a Chinese mic ?!!!

That's how the Chinese "knock off" most of their stuff. It's a *lot* easier
to copy stuff you are already making for someone else.

Trevor.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 3/13/2013 3:23 AM, Trevor wrote:

They could use a spectrum analyser for a start, then make polar response
measurements to know what to expect.

It's really difficult to accurately characterize a microphone. First you
need an accurate and predictable sound source, and second, you need an
anechoic environment. Third, you need to know what you're doing and how
to interpret the data.

Still, from a family of spectral response plots, you can't reliably
predict that "This will sound great on Mary's voice when she's singing a
ballad in the kitchen."



--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[david gourley[_2_]]

"Soundhaspriority"
said...news:xKudnRIi47JhZaLMnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@gigan ews.com:



"Paul" wrote in message ...

http://www.swee****er.com/store/detail/C1Mic/reviews

Someone wrote, "The Studio Projects C1 is a u87 with cheap parts."

Maybe I'll get one and put in some Wimas, polystyrenes...

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

I haven't read all through this thread, but I suspect that it's another
bash
at Chinese mikes. So I'll be the possibly sole dissenter. I admire Studio
Projects mikes.

Studio Projects mikes are a cut above other Chinese mikes. The C4 is a
great
favorite of mine. It sounds nothing like a "guitar mike", because the
designer is an admirer of Schoeps. It is my understanding that the sound
is
inspired by Schoeps.

By the designer's own statement, the Chinese capsule makers do not hold
tolerances in the same way as the vaunted European and American high end
makers. However, in my experience, this never resulted in appreciable
mike
mismatches for the rooms I recorded in.

If the C1 is anything like the C4, you won't have to swap in Wimas,
because
they are already there. Within the limits of price, Studio Projects
cares.

Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511



I agree. I have a pair of C4s (with capsules), and they've been
outstanding for the price. They have worked well in cases where other
things have not.

david

[geoff]

"Paul" wrote in message
...
On 3/12/2013 8:56 PM, Soundhaspriority wrote:


Thanks, Bob. I just might pick up a C1. Too many people have
made a buzz about it...


Don't know if a 'buzz' is a good thing wrt mics ;-0

geoff

[Trevor]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
It's really difficult to accurately characterize a microphone. First you
need an accurate and predictable sound source, and second, you need an
anechoic environment. Third, you need to know what you're doing and how to
interpret the data.

All true.

Still, from a family of spectral response plots, you can't reliably
predict that "This will sound great on Mary's voice when she's singing a
ballad in the kitchen."

And not that many can reliably predict using their ears even *after* the
event unfortunately :-(
(Not to mention how many simply believe their ears are always right, so
everyone else must always be wrong if they have a different opinion :-)

However I usually find knowing the technicalities allows me to more easily
give the client what *they* want at least.

Trevor.

[Paul[_13_]]

On 3/12/2013 8:56 PM, Soundhaspriority wrote:


"Paul" wrote in message ...

http://www.swee****er.com/store/detail/C1Mic/reviews

Someone wrote, "The Studio Projects C1 is a u87 with cheap parts."

Maybe I'll get one and put in some Wimas, polystyrenes...

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

I haven't read all through this thread, but I suspect that it's another
bash at Chinese mikes. So I'll be the possibly sole dissenter. I admire
Studio Projects mikes.

Studio Projects mikes are a cut above other Chinese mikes. The C4 is a
great favorite of mine. It sounds nothing like a "guitar mike", because
the designer is an admirer of Schoeps. It is my understanding that the
sound is inspired by Schoeps.

By the designer's own statement, the Chinese capsule makers do not hold
tolerances in the same way as the vaunted European and American high end
makers. However, in my experience, this never resulted in appreciable
mike mismatches for the rooms I recorded in.

If the C1 is anything like the C4, you won't have to swap in Wimas,
because they are already there. Within the limits of price, Studio
Projects cares.


You're right, the Wimas are already the


http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/attac...od-sp-c1-b.png


There's a "new-in-box"/used one on Ebay for $180 + $20 shipping......

[Nate Najar]

So you have $200 for that microphone, $150 for the other one that you bought, plus all of the extra parts and your time. With all of that you could've bought a Josephson C 42 microphone and gone to make some music

[Steve King]

Nate Najar wrote:
So you have $200 for that microphone, $150 for the other one that you
bought, plus all of the extra parts and your time. With all of that
you could've bought a Josephson C 42 microphone and gone to make some
music

I think this is part of the learning process for some people. I started out
in broadcasting with the usual suspects for the time as announce mics, 44BX,
77DX, EV666, Shure 556, etc. I played around with building up my own mics
from capsules available. Those efforts weren't very successful, but I
learned something. When I stepped into my first recording studio gig, I
walked into a closet full of Telefunken, Schoeps, Neumann, B&O, Sony, Shure,
EV, et al. Probably 50 mics, each on their own mounting base on a plywood
wall. I had no idea what a range of tools I had and how well they had been
selected. Other engineers told me they used such and such mic on this and
such and such other mic on that. Over time I learned what I liked for the
type of music I was recording and, often, the player. Who gets that
opportunity today? Not many I'd guess. Still, some of the most pleasant
memories of my early career have to do with the custom equipment the other
engineers and I built. Great fun. Learned something every time. Became
more humble with each do-over. Now, I have very few locked in stone ideas.
It all depends. I think most music is experienced today through a pair of
$5 earbuds. I think most of us work hard at the sound to please ourselves,
because the end user for the most part will never know the difference. So,
experiment. Have fun. Waste money. Go record something. And, don't get
upset if the pros here, who have accumulated years of successes and failures
and know just how they'd do it if they were in your shoes, tell you how
foolish you are. Just be glad you aren't part of the old apprentice system,
where you had to earn your right to play with the toys by making coffee and
carrying out the trash for a couple of years.

Steve King

[Paul[_13_]]

On 3/14/2013 11:12 AM, Nate Najar wrote:
So you have $200 for that microphone, $150 for the other one that you bought, plus all of the extra parts and your time. With all of that you could've bought a Josephson C 42 microphone and gone to make some music


Look, I appreciated your advice, I really do. But I'm only copying
Jim William's mods, and seeing as he designed the original Rode NT1/NT2,
I'm gonna trust his opinion over yours.

He's modded something like 12 of the SP-1, which I don't think
he would have done if he thought he was wasting his time. He very
clearly feels the final product can compete with the big boys. You
don't seem to understand that the SP-1 is only a donor mic, so with the
full mod, you only really use the basket, shell, PCB boards, and some
of the DC-DC converter components, which are not critical. So far,
his electronic mods were clearly worth doing, so I look forward to
getting a new capsule today.

If the Studio Project C1 sounds bad to me, I'll return it.....I
think there's a good chance I'll like it.

[Paul[_13_]]

On 3/14/2013 12:00 PM, Steve King wrote:
Nate Najar wrote:
So you have $200 for that microphone, $150 for the other one that you
bought, plus all of the extra parts and your time. With all of that
you could've bought a Josephson C 42 microphone and gone to make some
music

I think this is part of the learning process for some people. I started out
in broadcasting with the usual suspects for the time as announce mics, 44BX,
77DX, EV666, Shure 556, etc. I played around with building up my own mics
from capsules available. Those efforts weren't very successful, but I
learned something. When I stepped into my first recording studio gig, I
walked into a closet full of Telefunken, Schoeps, Neumann, B&O, Sony, Shure,
EV, et al. Probably 50 mics, each on their own mounting base on a plywood
wall. I had no idea what a range of tools I had and how well they had been
selected. Other engineers told me they used such and such mic on this and
such and such other mic on that. Over time I learned what I liked for the
type of music I was recording and, often, the player. Who gets that
opportunity today? Not many I'd guess. Still, some of the most pleasant
memories of my early career have to do with the custom equipment the other
engineers and I built. Great fun. Learned something every time. Became
more humble with each do-over. Now, I have very few locked in stone ideas.
It all depends. I think most music is experienced today through a pair of
$5 earbuds. I think most of us work hard at the sound to please ourselves,
because the end user for the most part will never know the difference. So,
experiment. Have fun. Waste money. Go record something. And, don't get
upset if the pros here, who have accumulated years of successes and failures
and know just how they'd do it if they were in your shoes, tell you how
foolish you are. Just be glad you aren't part of the old apprentice system,
where you had to earn your right to play with the toys by making coffee and
carrying out the trash for a couple of years.


Good points, but it's not "wasted" money if I learn something
and have a blast!

And I never knew who Jim Williams was until a couple of people here
turned me on to his SP-1 mods. Naturally, there are a variety of
opinions here.

Listen to the awful noise/tape hiss at the beginning of this hit song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NsJ84YV1oA

But as a listener, you never really notice it. The songs and the
music are clearly more important....

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Paul wrote:
Look, I appreciated your advice, I really do. But I'm only copying
Jim William's mods, and seeing as he designed the original Rode NT1/NT2,
I'm gonna trust his opinion over yours.

I think part of what people are upset about is how you are putting words
into Jim Williams' mouth. He's a smart fellow. He can speak for himself.

He's modded something like 12 of the SP-1, which I don't think
he would have done if he thought he was wasting his time. He very
clearly feels the final product can compete with the big boys. You
don't seem to understand that the SP-1 is only a donor mic, so with the
full mod, you only really use the basket, shell, PCB boards, and some
of the DC-DC converter components, which are not critical. So far,
his electronic mods were clearly worth doing, so I look forward to
getting a new capsule today.

I think you really need to go out and listen to some good microphones.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Paul[_13_]]

On 3/14/2013 12:55 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Paul wrote:
Look, I appreciated your advice, I really do. But I'm only copying
Jim William's mods, and seeing as he designed the original Rode NT1/NT2,
I'm gonna trust his opinion over yours.

I think part of what people are upset about is how you are putting words
into Jim Williams' mouth. He's a smart fellow. He can speak for himself.


How am I putting words in his mouth?

I'm just following his instructions, that's all. And they
are good instructions so far.


He's modded something like 12 of the SP-1, which I don't think
he would have done if he thought he was wasting his time. He very
clearly feels the final product can compete with the big boys. You
don't seem to understand that the SP-1 is only a donor mic, so with the
full mod, you only really use the basket, shell, PCB boards, and some
of the DC-DC converter components, which are not critical. So far,
his electronic mods were clearly worth doing, so I look forward to
getting a new capsule today.

I think you really need to go out and listen to some good microphones.
--scott


I think you really need to stick your head in a toilet....

[Nate Najar]

I can't figure out how to quote on the iPhone. What I'm responding to is Scott Dorsey saying
"I think you need to go listen to some good microphones."

When I was about 16 years old, I took guitar lessons. My guitar teacher told me the way to play a harmonic was to use my little finger. Every time we got to a passage where there was a harmonic and I used a different finger he would say to me "use your little finger." I still didn't hear him or otherwise didn't do it and he would continue to repeat himself more loudly each time. Then he started saying "this is a recorded message use your little finger." And then he would continue to repeat t"his is a recorded message use your little finger." And then finally I got it but it took a while

[Steve King]

Jeff Henig wrote:
"Steve King" Just be glad you
aren't part of the old apprentice system,
where you had to earn your right to play with the toys by making
coffee and carrying out the trash for a couple of years.

Steve King

Dude, just being honest here, but I think I'd have given my eye teeth
to have apprenticed like that back in the day if I'd been
concentrating on board work rather than being behind the mic.

Just being in the room and watching someone who knows what they're
doing and doesn't mind a question or two seems pretty damned valuable
to me.

JMHSO

I hear ya. Gary Geppart (Gepco founder), Ed Cherney (Grammy winner), and
Chris Sabold (Chicago Recoding Company) were among the apprentices at
Paragon, when I was there. They did okay. Other engineers on staff at the
time were Barry Mraz, Malcolm Chisholm, and Marty Feldman along with regular
free-lancer Bruce Swedeen. That was a bunch of mentors, huh?

Steve King

[hank alrich]

Paul wrote:

On 3/14/2013 12:55 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Paul wrote:
Look, I appreciated your advice, I really do. But I'm only copying
Jim William's mods, and seeing as he designed the original Rode NT1/NT2,
I'm gonna trust his opinion over yours.

I think part of what people are upset about is how you are putting words
into Jim Williams' mouth. He's a smart fellow. He can speak for himself.


How am I putting words in his mouth?

I'm just following his instructions, that's all. And they
are good instructions so far.


He's modded something like 12 of the SP-1, which I don't think
he would have done if he thought he was wasting his time. He very
clearly feels the final product can compete with the big boys. You
don't seem to understand that the SP-1 is only a donor mic, so with the
full mod, you only really use the basket, shell, PCB boards, and some
of the DC-DC converter components, which are not critical. So far,
his electronic mods were clearly worth doing, so I look forward to
getting a new capsule today.

I think you really need to go out and listen to some good microphones.
--scott


I think you really need to stick your head in a toilet....

Wouldn't he have to flush it first to get you on your way?

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://hankandshaidrimusic.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic

[polymod]

"Steve King" wrote in message
...
Jeff Henig wrote:
"Steve King" Just be glad you
aren't part of the old apprentice system,
where you had to earn your right to play with the toys by making
coffee and carrying out the trash for a couple of years.

Steve King

Dude, just being honest here, but I think I'd have given my eye teeth
to have apprenticed like that back in the day if I'd been
concentrating on board work rather than being behind the mic.

Just being in the room and watching someone who knows what they're
doing and doesn't mind a question or two seems pretty damned valuable
to me.

JMHSO

I hear ya. Gary Geppart (Gepco founder), Ed Cherney (Grammy winner), and
Chris Sabold (Chicago Recoding Company) were among the apprentices at
Paragon, when I was there. They did okay. Other engineers on staff at
the time were Barry Mraz, Malcolm Chisholm, and Marty Feldman along with
regular free-lancer Bruce Swedeen. That was a bunch of mentors, huh?

You were very fortunate!

Poly

[Steve King]

polymod wrote:
"Steve King" wrote in message
...
Jeff Henig wrote:
"Steve King" Just be glad you
aren't part of the old apprentice system,
where you had to earn your right to play with the toys by making
coffee and carrying out the trash for a couple of years.

Steve King

Dude, just being honest here, but I think I'd have given my eye
teeth to have apprenticed like that back in the day if I'd been
concentrating on board work rather than being behind the mic.

Just being in the room and watching someone who knows what they're
doing and doesn't mind a question or two seems pretty damned
valuable to me.

JMHSO

I hear ya. Gary Geppart (Gepco founder), Ed Cherney (Grammy
winner), and Chris Sabold (Chicago Recoding Company) were among the
apprentices at Paragon, when I was there. They did okay. Other
engineers on staff at the time were Barry Mraz, Malcolm Chisholm,
and Marty Feldman along with regular free-lancer Bruce Swedeen. That was
a bunch of mentors, huh?

You were very fortunate!

Poly

I know.

Steve King

[J.C. Scott[_2_]]

"Paul" wrote in message ...

On 3/10/2013 12:57 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
I hate to tell you this, but when it all comes down to it, you have to
trust your ears. Nobody on the internet can tell you what is good and
what is bad. You have to use your ears and start thinking for yourself.

Just because a restaurant is packed, doesn't guarantee I'll
like the food....but I'll try it once.....

Where's the disagreement? Aren't you basically suggesting you'll try a mic
rather than automatically assume it's good based on mass hearsay(which is
exactly what Dorsey is recommending)?

[Fran Guidry]

On Tuesday, March 12, 2013 8:43:30 AM UTC-7, Doug McDonald wrote:
....
I've always wondered .... while the above advice is obviously good, how much

does it tell about what all listeners to the product will hear? That is ....

what about the hearing of the person doing the above testing ... and deciding

on what mic to use for the recording?



Different people have different abilities to hear high frequencies, and the

same person hears worse at high frequencies as the age. I certainly would have

been a great tester and listener at age 21 when I could hear reliably to

23 kHz. But at age 68, when my hearing is dead as a doornail at 14 kHz and

not so great at 12 hHz, its would be totally silly for me to pretend

to be able to test microphones or do a high frequency balance job

on a recording.

....

Doug McDonald

The region above 10khz is not where the problems lie, as I see things. That top octave is not as important as it looks on the FR graph. Our ears, regardless of age, are a lot more sensitive to the stuff below 10 khz, and the region from 4 to 10 is the "highs." 10 to 20 is "air."

So even with old fogey roll-off a nasty HF bump is evident.

Fran