[Sean Conolly]

Had an interesting evening with a guy who's been engineering and producing
for maybe 25 years, listening to the stuff that he's doing now as an indy
producer. The guy's stuff sounds very good, all about the music without
letting the production overwhelm the songs. What blew me away is what he's
doing it with - an old PC with $100 sound card, an old Behringer mixer and
two SM57s.His 'monitors' were a set Sony 5.1 speakers picked up on special
at Best Buy. I don't remember what software he was using, but he certainly
knew how to make it work.

The music impressed me, but that he got it sounding as good as it did
through that rig is amazing. When I asked him about how he could go from top
of the line production facilities this setup, he just said it was all he
really needed to get the job done.

So for those readers who are starting from scratch - don't feel like your
little rig isn't going to be capable producing good results. It's all about
knowing how to use what you got.

Sean

[Six String Stu[_2_]]

"Sean Conolly" wrote in message
...
Had an interesting evening with a guy who's been engineering and producing
for maybe 25 years, listening to the stuff that he's doing now as an indy
producer. The guy's stuff sounds very good, all about the music without
letting the production overwhelm the songs. What blew me away is what he's
doing it with - an old PC with $100 sound card, an old Behringer mixer and
two SM57s.His 'monitors' were a set Sony 5.1 speakers picked up on special
at Best Buy. I don't remember what software he was using, but he certainly
knew how to make it work.

The music impressed me, but that he got it sounding as good as it did
through that rig is amazing. When I asked him about how he could go from
top
of the line production facilities this setup, he just said it was all he
really needed to get the job done.

So for those readers who are starting from scratch - don't feel like your
little rig isn't going to be capable producing good results. It's all
about
knowing how to use what you got.

Sean


Well that's encouraging!

[Markus Mietling]

Six String Stu wrote in :

So for those readers who are starting from scratch - don't feel like your
little rig isn't going to be capable producing good results. It's all
about
knowing how to use what you got.

Well that's encouraging!

Then you might enjoy reading this:


That's Tonebarge, who notoriously used a Mackie 1604 in his later
career.

m

[Six String Stu[_2_]]

"Markus Mietling" wrote in message
...
Six String Stu wrote in :

So for those readers who are starting from scratch - don't feel like
your
little rig isn't going to be capable producing good results. It's all
about
knowing how to use what you got.

Well that's encouraging!

Then you might enjoy reading this:


That's Tonebarge, who notoriously used a Mackie 1604 in his later
career.

m
Well heck, that's even more encouraging. I have the poor and cheap equipment
stuff all taken care of, and I'd much rather be happy then overburdened with
wealth and all it's troubles. Still, I don't enjoy being dirt poor so, as my
experiance teaches me I hope to navagate towards "comfortable" and get off
of this Disability insurance check. Back when I was a S.C.U.B.A. bridge
repair specialist I had more money then I could spend on flat bellied women,
good whiskey and custom hard tails. Those days are long gone now.
But hey! I've got a Roberts 1630 and a Sony TC-355 so I'm on the right
track.
I just hope I don't become as obsolete as my gear. ;-)

[[email protected]]

On Jun 24, 1:48 pm, "Soundhaspriority" wrote:

This forum shows a number of contradictory sentiments, depending upon who's
talking. To wit:

As I come from the outside, having been involved with professional level of
equipment for a bit over a year,

Nevertheless, I found this forum extremely useful, even though the advices
given could not be taken literally
But the nature of popular music is that it allows one to cheat on fidelity.

2. Synthetic, in which the actual recording process serves as a base for
elaborate manipulation.
that the displacement of the acoustic space by the electronic
may have been the sneaking up of "virtual reality", before most of us were
even aware of the term.

ho boy do you wonder about the illusion of stereo???

check out

http://www.mil-media.com/LargeEnsemb...eningTest.html
http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.com/

[drichard]

Hi Bob,

The one thing that you wrote that I find completely indisputable is
the following:

But the nature of popular music is that it allows one to cheat on fidelity.

I defy anyone to hear differences in microphones or preamps used on
probably 75% of the recordings sold and listened to today. And even if
an audio engineer can hear it, who else can? In the Top 40 recordings
that are selling those subtleties simply aren't important. How can
they be when mastering engineers squash the final product so badly
that they intentionally create distortion? And the end product will be
converted to 128K MP3 anyway.

To some extent this forum is one of the few remaining places for those
of us who care about such things to gather. And yes, we get passionate
and intense. I consider that a good thing.

Dean

[Markus Mietling]

Soundhaspriority wrote in
:

Then you might enjoy reading this:


That's Tonebarge, who notoriously used a Mackie 1604 in his later
career.

m

This forum shows a number of contradictory sentiments,

Why would you care? Didn't you notice that this Tonebarge character
failed to pass your criteria for being an authority by not posting his
real name, professional affiliation, and Social Security Number?

m

[Six String Stu[_2_]]

"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message
...

"drichard" wrote in message
ups.com...
Hi Bob,

The one thing that you wrote that I find completely indisputable is
the following:

But the nature of popular music is that it allows one to cheat on
fidelity.

I defy anyone to hear differences in microphones or preamps used on
probably 75% of the recordings sold and listened to today. And even if
an audio engineer can hear it, who else can? In the Top 40 recordings
that are selling those subtleties simply aren't important. How can
they be when mastering engineers squash the final product so badly
that they intentionally create distortion? And the end product will be
converted to 128K MP3 anyway.

To some extent this forum is one of the few remaining places for those
of us who care about such things to gather. And yes, we get passionate
and intense. I consider that a good thing.

Dean

It is a good thing, even if passions rule more than they should

Bob Morein
Dresher, PA
(215) 646-4894

I dunno, I'd still much rather be intensly passionate with a flat bellied
vixen then a bunch of electronics g

[Six String Stu[_2_]]

"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message
...

"Six String Stu" wrote in message
...

"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message
...

"drichard" wrote in message
ups.com...
Hi Bob,

The one thing that you wrote that I find completely indisputable is
the following:

But the nature of popular music is that it allows one to cheat on
fidelity.

I defy anyone to hear differences in microphones or preamps used on
probably 75% of the recordings sold and listened to today. And even if
an audio engineer can hear it, who else can? In the Top 40 recordings
that are selling those subtleties simply aren't important. How can
they be when mastering engineers squash the final product so badly
that they intentionally create distortion? And the end product will be
converted to 128K MP3 anyway.

To some extent this forum is one of the few remaining places for those
of us who care about such things to gather. And yes, we get passionate
and intense. I consider that a good thing.

Dean

It is a good thing, even if passions rule more than they should

Bob Morein
Dresher, PA
(215) 646-4894

I dunno, I'd still much rather be intensly passionate with a flat bellied
vixen then a bunch of electronics g
See LIQUID SKY, http://imdb.com/title/tt0085852/ , and you'll realize it's
much healthier to be a geek

Bob Morein
Dresher, PA
(215) 646-4894

lol
Well sure I can't argue with that.

[Sean Conolly]

"Six String Stu" wrote in message
...
I dunno, I'd still much rather be intensly passionate with a flat bellied
vixen then a bunch of electronics g

OK pal - that's 10 points off your geek card!

Sean

[Six String Stu[_2_]]

"Sean Conolly" wrote in message
...
"Six String Stu" wrote in message
...
I dunno, I'd still much rather be intensly passionate with a flat bellied
vixen then a bunch of electronics g

OK pal - that's 10 points off your geek card!

Sean


At this rate I'm never gonna get enough points saved up for that Bill Gates
haloween mask ;-(

[Sean Conolly]

"drichard" wrote in message
ups.com...
Hi Bob,

The one thing that you wrote that I find completely indisputable is
the following:

But the nature of popular music is that it allows one to cheat on
fidelity.

I defy anyone to hear differences in microphones or preamps used on
probably 75% of the recordings sold and listened to today. And even if
an audio engineer can hear it, who else can? In the Top 40 recordings
that are selling those subtleties simply aren't important. How can
they be when mastering engineers squash the final product so badly
that they intentionally create distortion? And the end product will be
converted to 128K MP3 anyway.

To some extent this forum is one of the few remaining places for those
of us who care about such things to gather. And yes, we get passionate
and intense. I consider that a good thing.

And this is exactly what this guy is doing (I'm the OP). He's learned how to
get what he wants quickly from the gear he has, and more importantly he
knows what he needs to get, and Hi-Fi isn't part of either equation.

HowEver....

I also have to say that there's a big jump in sound quality on the first few
rungs of the ladder. I also have an ECM8000 ($40) and a MC-012 with an omni
capsule ($100), and to me the Oktava is significantly better sounding while
still being very affordable. The guy I was listening to certainly has the
budget to get a little better (hell a LOT better gear) than he has, but he
just says it doesn't add any value to what he's marketing.

Which makes me feel better about being a hobbiest. I want a bigger more open
sound of good players & instruments in a good room with good mics - not
because it adds any perceived value, but because *I* can hear the
difference.

Sean

[drichard]

Hi Bob,

Are you sure about the Oktava info, as it applies to older mics? I
thought the MC-012 model number could merely designate it as a cardiod
model prior to 2005.

Dean



On Jun 25, 1:10 am, "Soundhaspriority" wrote:
"Sean Conolly" wrote in message

...





"drichard" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hi Bob,

The one thing that you wrote that I find completely indisputable is
the following:

But the nature of popular music is that it allows one to cheat on
fidelity.

I defy anyone to hear differences in microphones or preamps used on
probably 75% of the recordings sold and listened to today. And even if
an audio engineer can hear it, who else can? In the Top 40 recordings
that are selling those subtleties simply aren't important. How can
they be when mastering engineers squash the final product so badly
that they intentionally create distortion? And the end product will be
converted to 128K MP3 anyway.

To some extent this forum is one of the few remaining places for those
of us who care about such things to gather. And yes, we get passionate
and intense. I consider that a good thing.

And this is exactly what this guy is doing (I'm the OP). He's learned how
to
get what he wants quickly from the gear he has, and more importantly he
knows what he needs to get, and Hi-Fi isn't part of either equation.

HowEver....

I also have to say that there's a big jump in sound quality on the first
few
rungs of the ladder. I also have an ECM8000 ($40) and a MC-012 with an
omni
capsule ($100), and to me the Oktava

1. You don't have a real Octava. The MC is a Chinese copy. The MK is the
real deal. Seehttp://reviews.harmony-central.com/reviews/Microphone/product/Oktava/...
"BEWARE. The mics marked as Oktava MC-012 (with a "C") are Chinese copies of
the Russian version. They Guitar Center has brilliantly been selling these
as the Russian version. They vary wildly in frequency response due to a
absence of quality control by the manufacturer, and, moreover, there are
some other problem"
andhttp://oktava.tula.net/fake/

2. These are different kinds of microphones. The ECM8000 has a 1/4"
diaphragm, is noisier, and has less dyanmic range. However, the smaller
diaphragm provides flatter frequency response, particularly in the treble.

These microphones do not sound better or worse. Let's not compare apples
with oranges.

Bob Morein
Dresher, PA
(215) 646-4894- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

[Scott Dorsey]

drichard wrote:

Are you sure about the Oktava info, as it applies to older mics? I
thought the MC-012 model number could merely designate it as a cardiod
model prior to 2005.

The microphones sold through A&S McKay say MC-012 on them instead of
MK-012.

SOME of the more recent microphones sold by A&S McKay are Chinese copies,
but most of them aren't. The Chinese copies have electronics that are
actually a little better-made than the Russian originals, but capsules that
are just godawful.
--scott

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

[drichard]

Hi Bob,

Several years ago Guitar Center sold the Russian Oktava mics, well
before McKay started putting out the Chinese clones. I bought four,
hand picked two, and returned the rest. I like them. I think I paid
$125 each for them, but I know they were cheaper at different times.
So it's possible the $100 mic is a Russian mic.

Dean

On Jun 25, 10:53 am, "Soundhaspriority" wrote:
No, I just quoted from the sources I found. But Sean indicates he paid $100
for the mike. That does not sound like the price of an original.

Bob Morein
Dresher, PA
(215) 646-4894

"drichard" wrote in message

oups.com...



Hi Bob,

Are you sure about the Oktava info, as it applies to older mics? I
thought the MC-012 model number could merely designate it as a cardiod
model prior to 2005.

Dean

On Jun 25, 1:10 am, "Soundhaspriority" wrote:
"Sean Conolly" wrote in message

.. .

"drichard" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hi Bob,

The one thing that you wrote that I find completely indisputable is
the following:

But the nature of popular music is that it allows one to cheat on
fidelity.

I defy anyone to hear differences in microphones or preamps used on
probably 75% of the recordings sold and listened to today. And even if
an audio engineer can hear it, who else can? In the Top 40 recordings
that are selling those subtleties simply aren't important. How can
they be when mastering engineers squash the final product so badly
that they intentionally create distortion? And the end product will be
converted to 128K MP3 anyway.

To some extent this forum is one of the few remaining places for those
of us who care about such things to gather. And yes, we get passionate
and intense. I consider that a good thing.

And this is exactly what this guy is doing (I'm the OP). He's learned
how
to
get what he wants quickly from the gear he has, and more importantly he
knows what he needs to get, and Hi-Fi isn't part of either equation.

HowEver....

I also have to say that there's a big jump in sound quality on the
first
few
rungs of the ladder. I also have an ECM8000 ($40) and a MC-012 with an
omni
capsule ($100), and to me the Oktava

1. You don't have a real Octava. The MC is a Chinese copy. The MK is the
real deal.
Seehttp://reviews.harmony-central.com/reviews/Microphone/product/Oktava/...
"BEWARE. The mics marked as Oktava MC-012 (with a "C") are Chinese copies
of
the Russian version. They Guitar Center has brilliantly been selling
these
as the Russian version. They vary wildly in frequency response due to a
absence of quality control by the manufacturer, and, moreover, there are
some other problem"
andhttp://oktava.tula.net/fake/

2. These are different kinds of microphones. The ECM8000 has a 1/4"
diaphragm, is noisier, and has less dyanmic range. However, the smaller
diaphragm provides flatter frequency response, particularly in the
treble.

These microphones do not sound better or worse. Let's not compare apples
with oranges.

Bob Morein
Dresher, PA
(215) 646-4894- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

[Scott Dorsey]

drichard wrote:

Several years ago Guitar Center sold the Russian Oktava mics, well
before McKay started putting out the Chinese clones. I bought four,
hand picked two, and returned the rest. I like them. I think I paid
$125 each for them, but I know they were cheaper at different times.
So it's possible the $100 mic is a Russian mic.

Yes. McKay sold the microphones from the Oktava factory in Tula for well
over a decade, and only had the Chinese clones made up when the Tula folks
refused to deal with them any more.

Not a lot of the clones were actually sold, but enough were sold to make
them something to watch out for.
--scott

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

[Sean Conolly]

"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message
...

"Sean Conolly" wrote in message
...
"drichard" wrote in message
ups.com...
Hi Bob,

The one thing that you wrote that I find completely indisputable is
the following:

But the nature of popular music is that it allows one to cheat on
fidelity.

I defy anyone to hear differences in microphones or preamps used on
probably 75% of the recordings sold and listened to today. And even if
an audio engineer can hear it, who else can? In the Top 40 recordings
that are selling those subtleties simply aren't important. How can
they be when mastering engineers squash the final product so badly
that they intentionally create distortion? And the end product will be
converted to 128K MP3 anyway.

To some extent this forum is one of the few remaining places for those
of us who care about such things to gather. And yes, we get passionate
and intense. I consider that a good thing.

And this is exactly what this guy is doing (I'm the OP). He's learned
how
to
get what he wants quickly from the gear he has, and more importantly he
knows what he needs to get, and Hi-Fi isn't part of either equation.

HowEver....

I also have to say that there's a big jump in sound quality on the first
few
rungs of the ladder. I also have an ECM8000 ($40) and a MC-012 with an
omni
capsule ($100), and to me the Oktava

1. You don't have a real Octava. The MC is a Chinese copy. The MK is the
real deal. See

Thanks for pointing this out, but I'm well aware of this and my mics are
Russian ones bought well before the clones appeared. I got them cheap
because GC were dumping them off. I had to go through a lot of mics to find
ones that sounded good, but it was worth the effort.

2. These are different kinds of microphones. The ECM8000 has a 1/4"
diaphragm, is noisier, and has less dyanmic range. However, the smaller
diaphragm provides flatter frequency response, particularly in the treble.

These microphones do not sound better or worse. Let's not compare apples
with oranges.

I'll respectfully disagree. The Behr really does sound worse, and I'm
certain that's not going to be true of all 1/4" mics. It's flat response is
good enough for what I bought it for: a measurement mic. My point still
stands - at the bottom end the scale the differences are much more audible
and it's probably worth investing just a little more money instead of just
getting the dead cheapest thing that works - especially when it comes to
mics.

Sean

[Ty Ford]

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 10:11:57 -0400, drichard wrote
(in article .com):

Hi Bob,

Are you sure about the Oktava info, as it applies to older mics? I
thought the MC-012 model number could merely designate it as a cardiod
model prior to 2005.

Dean

The first iteration of the Oktava in the US was the MK 012. That described a
body with three capsules. I reviewed it for Pro Audio Review quite a few
years back. I think they were coming in from the UK from Mckay (sp?)

When that turned sour, Allied Broadcast began importing them, but dumped
Oktava pretty quickly.

My original review is in the online archive of my website.

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

[Scott Dorsey]

Ty Ford wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 10:11:57 -0400, drichard wrote
(in article .com):

Hi Bob,

Are you sure about the Oktava info, as it applies to older mics? I
thought the MC-012 model number could merely designate it as a cardiod
model prior to 2005.

The first iteration of the Oktava in the US was the MK 012. That described a
body with three capsules. I reviewed it for Pro Audio Review quite a few
years back. I think they were coming in from the UK from Mckay (sp?)

Yes.

When that turned sour, Allied Broadcast began importing them, but dumped
Oktava pretty quickly.

No, what happened was that McKay got an agreement with Allied to sell them
as an exclusive dealer.

Then SOMETHING happened which caused McKay to drop Harris/Allied and take
Guitar Center as their exclusive dealer.

It has only been in the last year or so that the Oktava factory has been
in a disagreement with McKay and refusing to ship products to McKay.

My original review is in the online archive of my website.

Part of the problem is that McKay was constantly pressing the Tula folks
for more microphones at cheaper prices, regardless of quality. As a result,
they were getting a lot of substandard microphones.
--scott

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

[Paul Stamler]

"Ty Ford" wrote in message
. ..

The first iteration of the Oktava in the US was the MK 012. That described
a
body with three capsules. I reviewed it for Pro Audio Review quite a few
years back. I think they were coming in from the UK from Mckay (sp?)

When that turned sour, Allied Broadcast began importing them, but dumped
Oktava pretty quickly.

I got mine from Allied; as far as I know they were buying them from MacKay.

Peace,
Paul

[Scott Dorsey]

Paul Stamler wrote:
"Ty Ford" wrote in message
...

The first iteration of the Oktava in the US was the MK 012. That described
a
body with three capsules. I reviewed it for Pro Audio Review quite a few
years back. I think they were coming in from the UK from Mckay (sp?)

When that turned sour, Allied Broadcast began importing them, but dumped
Oktava pretty quickly.

I got mine from Allied; as far as I know they were buying them from MacKay.

They were. What is interesting is that they also got some odd prototype
microphones from McKay, and when McKay pulled the line in favor of
distribution through GC, Allied sold some of the weird prototypes in the
resulting blowout sale.
--scott


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

[[email protected]]

On Jun 26, 3:05 pm, "Soundhaspriority" wrote:
"Sean Conolly" wrote in message

...

"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message
m...

"Sean Conolly" wrote in message
.. .
"drichard" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hi Bob,

[snip]

I'll respectfully disagree. The Behr really does sound worse, and I'm
certain that's not going to be true of all 1/4" mics. It's flat response
is
good enough for what I bought it for: a measurement mic. My point still
stands - at the bottom end the scale the differences are much more audible
and it's probably worth investing just a little more money instead of just
getting the dead cheapest thing that works - especially when it comes to
mics.

Sean

It sounds worse in general use. For drum overheads, it sounds better than
most of what I've heard commercially. This is why I say, lets' not compare
apples to oranges.

Bob Morein
Dresher, PA
(215) 646-4894

lets compare no name know it all
to low life weasel

please go home to dad
and circle jerk with brian

[Sean Conolly]

"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message
...

"Sean Conolly" wrote in message
...
I'll respectfully disagree. The Behr really does sound worse, and I'm
certain that's not going to be true of all 1/4" mics.

It sounds worse in general use. For drum overheads, it sounds better than
most of what I've heard commercially. This is why I say, lets' not compare
apples to oranges.

We have seriously different tastes in what we want from drum overheads, then
:-) For me that's one of the best applications for the Oktavas, and although
the Behr has the response to pick up a lot of detail it ends up sounding
very un-musical to me.

Don't get me wrong, we all like what we like for our own reasons. No need to
argue over which cheap mic is better :-)

Sean