[David Grant]

Generally, from what I've read the top of the line is:
Schoeps, DPA, Josephson Series 6

With an upper-middle class consisting of:
Sennheiser MKH 40

With a middle class consisting of:
Josephson C42, Neumann KM184, AudioTechnica 4051

I own C42s and use them for piano recording and as an ambient stereo pair. I
find them too bright for my taste and would like to upgrade (I have a bit of
money to spend). I think the Schoeps, DPA and Joesphson 6s are out of my
price range for now. I'm looking in the $1100 per mic (new) range.

How/where does the AKG C480 fit in? Has anyone heard the MKH 8040 (might be
out of range, I haven't found a price)?

What other options do I have for an upgrade? Is it adviseable to wait if I
can and save for one of the heavy hitters?

Thanks,

Dave




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Scott Dorsey]

David Grant wrote:
Generally, from what I've read the top of the line is:
Schoeps, DPA, Josephson Series 6

With an upper-middle class consisting of:
Sennheiser MKH 40

I'd kind of put these together. The MKH 40 is a little weird, but it's
in the same kind of league.

The Series 6 is basically unavailable right now, though. They are making
the nickel omni capsules but not any of the cardioids currently.

With a middle class consisting of:
Josephson C42, Neumann KM184, AudioTechnica 4051

I'd tend to agree.

I own C42s and use them for piano recording and as an ambient stereo pair. I
find them too bright for my taste and would like to upgrade (I have a bit of
money to spend). I think the Schoeps, DPA and Joesphson 6s are out of my
price range for now. I'm looking in the $1100 per mic (new) range.

If you find the C42 bright, you might consider the DPA and Schoeps also to be
too bright. I think it depends on what you mean by "bright" really.

If you want something a little soft in the very top end, you might want to
consider a ribbon mike. If your problem is in the presence region, though,
that won't help.

How/where does the AKG C480 fit in? Has anyone heard the MKH 8040 (might be
out of range, I haven't found a price)?

I think I'd put the C480 closer to the middle class but other folks claim
it's in the Schoeps league. I don't think anyone in the US has really
tried the MKH 8000-series yet but I'm trying to arrange for an audition.

What other options do I have for an upgrade? Is it adviseable to wait if I
can and save for one of the heavy hitters?

ALL of the high end microphones are available for audition, and I strongly
advice checking out a set of the DPA or Schoeps for audition. Only you can
decide if it does what you want.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[andrejs eigus]

With an upper-middle class consisting of:
Sennheiser MKH 40

i think MKH 40, with it's low self-noise capabilities and a flat response,
is more of an upper class, though.

Has anyone heard the MKH 8040 (might be out of range, I haven't found a
price)?

afaik, the 8000 series are not in the shops yet. they were supposed to be
in the shops by end of september, but, apparently, these will be available
later. hopefully, october?

-andrejs

[andrejs eigus]

I'd kind of put these together. The MKH 40 is a little weird

what exactly do you mean?

-andrejs

[David Grant]

I think I'd put the C480 closer to the middle class but other folks claim
it's in the Schoeps league. I don't think anyone in the US has really
tried the MKH 8000-series yet but I'm trying to arrange for an audition.

Strange though that there's nothing other than (maybe) the c480 between the
two. Seems there's a big price gap that no one has filled. Wonder why.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Scott Fraser]

Strange though that there's nothing other than (maybe) the c480 between the
two. Seems there's a big price gap that no one has filled. Wonder why.

I haven't looked into the pricing in recent years, but the Neumann
KM140 has always been slightly sub-Schoeps & DPA price-wise, while
being able to hang in the same company quality-wise.

Scott Fraser

[David Grant]

"David Grant" wrote in message
.. .
Generally, from what I've read the top of the line is:
Schoeps, DPA, Josephson Series 6

With an upper-middle class consisting of:
Sennheiser MKH 40

With a middle class consisting of:
Josephson C42, Neumann KM184, AudioTechnica 4051

I own C42s and use them for piano recording and as an ambient stereo pair.
I find them too bright for my taste and would like to upgrade (I have a
bit of money to spend). I think the Schoeps, DPA and Joesphson 6s are out
of my price range for now. I'm looking in the $1100 per mic (new) range.

How/where does the AKG C480 fit in? Has anyone heard the MKH 8040 (might
be out of range, I haven't found a price)?

What other options do I have for an upgrade? Is it adviseable to wait if I
can and save for one of the heavy hitters?

Thanks,

Dave


I came across a pair of Earthworks SR30 for $1800... they seem to have had
no mention on RAP. Can anyone enlighten me?



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Paul Stamler]

Somewhere in the process, if you find a pair of Neumann KM 84s, you should
check them out. Less bright on top than KM 184s. They vary some, though.
Yeah, I know, Neumann says they don't. My experience is that they do.

Peace,
Paul

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , andrejs eigus wrote:
I'd kind of put these together. The MKH 40 is a little weird

what exactly do you mean?

There is some lower midrange weirdness going on with them. It's not
bad, it's just different.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

David Grant wrote:

I came across a pair of Earthworks SR30 for $1800... they seem to have had
no mention on RAP. Can anyone enlighten me?

It's effectively the same thing as the SR77. I'm not particularly a fan
of the thing, but they do seem to have a following out there.
--scott

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

[andrejs eigus]

I'd kind of put these together. The MKH 40 is a little weird

what exactly do you mean?

There is some lower midrange weirdness going on with them. It's not
bad, it's just different.

different in that it doesn't reflect the events in this region precisely as
they sound to your ear before being recorded, or just sounds different to
you when compared to other mikes which are supposed to have a similar
frequency response? it's a cardioid, isn't it, the mkh 40?

-andrejs

[Scott Fraser]

There is some lower midrange weirdness going on with them. It's not
bad, it's just different.

different in that it doesn't reflect the events in this region precisely as
they sound to your ear before being recorded, or just sounds different to
you when compared to other mikes which are supposed to have a similar
frequency response? it's a cardioid, isn't it, the mkh 40?

-andrejs

My experience mirrors Scott's on this. In mano a mano listening tests
on cello, I find the Schoeps & Neumann slightly more natural in the
200Hz to 300Hz range. And this is a difference between similar mics,
not between reality & a given mic, since no mic sounds anything like
the actual acoustic event.

Scott Fraser

[Mike Rivers]

On Oct 2, 12:30 pm, "David Grant"
Strange though that there's nothing other than (maybe) the c480 between the
two. Seems there's a big price gap that no one has filled. Wonder why.

Probalby not enough money in it. More people want $200 mics or
prestige mics (that work good). It's also hard to define a continuum
of microphones since given the diversity of sources and spaces,
there's no mic that will win every time.

If your Josephson mics are too bright, what can't you do with a little
EQ?

[Fletch]

On Oct 2, 8:39 am, "David Grant" wrote:
Generally, from what I've read the top of the line is:
Schoeps, DPA, Josephson Series 6

With an upper-middle class consisting of:
Sennheiser MKH 40

With a middle class consisting of:
Josephson C42, Neumann KM184, AudioTechnica 4051

I own C42s and use them for piano recording and as an ambient stereo pair. I
find them too bright for my taste and would like to upgrade (I have a bit of
money to spend). I think the Schoeps, DPA and Joesphson 6s are out of my
price range for now. I'm looking in the $1100 per mic (new) range.

How/where does the AKG C480 fit in? Has anyone heard the MKH 8040 (might be
out of range, I haven't found a price)?

What other options do I have for an upgrade? Is it adviseable to wait if I
can and save for one of the heavy hitters?

Thanks,

Dave

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com


I've been pondering a pair of Microtech Gefell M-300s. But I haven't
test driven them yet. I've heard good things about them, but need to
test them myself to be sure they are what I want. It is said they are
like the old KM 84s... But as we are learning here, hearing is
subjective.

--Fletch

[[email protected]]

i have owned pairs of neumann km184s, schoeps cmc64s, DPA 4011s and
4006s, gefell m300s, akg c460s and c480s, at4051s, and a large number
of other sdc mics of varying quality and price. of those, the DPA
4011s are easily the best mics made, IMHO. the akg c481s (c480b body/
ck61 capsule) are very very close to the 4011s in both sound and build
quality, and i have used them on any number of sessions for grand
piano, strings, horns, winds, and pedal harp - they, like the 4011s
are stellar on almost everything i have used them on - transparent,
accurate, no top end hype, and amazingly quiet.

the schoeps were wonderful as a mid distance stereo pair, but were a
tad boomy when used in a more close mic situation in the studio. i
found the DPA 4006s (omnis) to be somewhat honky in the midrange,
though many people swear by those mics. the gefell m300s were much
in the same league as the km184s, though i would give a slight edge to
the gefells due to a more robust midrange response - both were a
little too bright for my taste. i prefer the at4051s over both the
gefells and the neumanns (though i have not used the km140s which
scott fraser suggests above, and scott truly knows what he is doing
after doing live sound for the kronos quartet for many years.) the
akg c461 is also not a bad mic, and many tapers love them. in fact,
the taperssection yard sale is a great place to find a good deal on
all kinds of SDC mics.

[Mike Clayton]

On Oct 3, 3:46 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote (in part):

I think I'd put the C480 closer to the middle class but other folks claim
it's in the Schoeps league.

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

I own and use both the Schoeps and the AKG C480B. Both have
interchangeable heads and my opinion is that the C480B is so close to
the Schoeps that I can happily interchange them. That makes the C480B
series very good value for money and I recommend you at least audition
one (or a pair!)

Mike Clayton

[Scott Fraser]

The fact that the Studio Projects C-4 has not been mentioned in this
thread should not deter you from trying them. In my opinion, the
"authorities" of this group cannot get themselves to admit that at least a
few of the Chinese products are world-beaters. I use these microphones, I
like them a lot, and they have pleased some very critical ears other than my
own.

Regards,
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511

Bob, the main reason that a lot of pros don't mention these mics is
very simply a case that we never run into them in our gigs. There's no
problem with admitting that they may very possibly be good, we just
don't know. I've been recording or mixing live sound nearly every day
of my life for the past 35 years & I've never seen a Studio Projects
C-4. No mic snobberry is involved. That mic just doesn't show up in
high end studios or performing arts centers, so it's a question mark
to many engineers.

Scott Fraser

[Mike Rivers]

On Oct 3, 12:04 am, Scott Fraser wrote:

Bob, the main reason that a lot of pros don't mention these mics is
very simply a case that we never run into them in our gigs. There's no
problem with admitting that they may very possibly be good, we just
don't know. I've been recording or mixing live sound nearly every day
of my life for the past 35 years & I've never seen a Studio Projects
C-4. No mic snobberry is involved. That mic just doesn't show up in
high end studios or performing arts centers

Hear! Hear! But the question is . . . why not? The reason is because
the people who purchase gear for these high end facilities are
satisfied with what they know and have used for years. They don't need
anything better, and they don't need to save money when they have
confidence in the performance and reliability of what they know.

Now and then you'll see a Famous Engineer who tried a new mic and
liked it, and maybe even added it to his collection. And although he
may say "Now I use it on ever session" in an ad, that doesn't last
very long.

[Laurence Payne]

On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 04:40:03 -0700, Mike Rivers
wrote:

Bob, the main reason that a lot of pros don't mention these mics is
very simply a case that we never run into them in our gigs. There's no
problem with admitting that they may very possibly be good, we just
don't know. I've been recording or mixing live sound nearly every day
of my life for the past 35 years & I've never seen a Studio Projects
C-4. No mic snobberry is involved. That mic just doesn't show up in
high end studios or performing arts centers

Hear! Hear! But the question is . . . why not? The reason is because
the people who purchase gear for these high end facilities are
satisfied with what they know and have used for years. They don't need
anything better, and they don't need to save money when they have
confidence in the performance and reliability of what they know.

Fine. Which is good for them (unless they take conservatism to such
an extreme that they don't notice their work is going to newcomers who
can get the same results at half the price).

But it doesn't necessarily make them useful sources of advice for
people buying gear NOW.

[Richard Crowley]

"Mike Rivers" wrote...
Scott Fraser wrote:
Bob, the main reason that a lot of pros don't mention these mics is
very simply a case that we never run into them in our gigs. There's
no
problem with admitting that they may very possibly be good, we just
don't know. I've been recording or mixing live sound nearly every day
of my life for the past 35 years & I've never seen a Studio Projects
C-4. No mic snobberry is involved. That mic just doesn't show up in
high end studios or performing arts centers

Hear! Hear! But the question is . . . why not? The reason is because
the people who purchase gear for these high end facilities are
satisfied with what they know and have used for years. They don't need
anything better, and they don't need to save money when they have
confidence in the performance and reliability of what they know.

They also don't heed the grief from taking a chance on something
only to have it fall apart in rugged use in a public venue, etc.
Lots of that stuff likely holds up nicely in cushy home studios,
but doesn't have the build quality or mechanical integrity to
hold up in harsher environments. Some of those low-cost
products achieve their savings by skimping on the mechanics.
It takes years to build a reputation of ruggedness and reliability
regardless of sonic performance.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
ups.com
On Oct 3, 12:04 am, Scott Fraser
wrote:

Bob, the main reason that a lot of pros don't mention
these mics is very simply a case that we never run into
them in our gigs. There's no problem with admitting that
they may very possibly be good, we just don't know. I've
been recording or mixing live sound nearly every day of
my life for the past 35 years & I've never seen a Studio
Projects C-4. No mic snobberry is involved. That mic
just doesn't show up in high end studios or performing
arts centers

Follows is what is IME excellent wisdom. I wish I had posted this:

Hear! Hear! But the question is . . . why not? The reason
is because the people who purchase gear for these high
end facilities are satisfied with what they know and have
used for years. They don't need anything better, and they
don't need to save money when they have confidence in the
performance and reliability of what they know.

I regularly step back and forth between the world of budgetary plenty and
the world of relative economic impovrishment. Good work and crappy work is
happening in both realms.

20 years ago, "$100 mic" meant a cheap dynamic like a SM58. Today, you can
get a lot of good sound out of the right sub-$100 mic, knowing what you are
doing being a great help.

Now and then you'll see a Famous Engineer who tried a new
mic and liked it, and maybe even added it to his
collection. And although he may say "Now I use it on ever
session" in an ad, that doesn't last very long.

In my case, that guy was Harvey Gearst. He turned me on to MXL 603s. I
wonder what Harvey thinks of them today...

[Ty Ford]

The only real difference I see in this string and others is that the "new
school" has become more literate than the "old school." Otherwise it's the
same argument we have had here for years.

"Is the new stuff as good as the old GOOD stuff (not to be confused with the
old BAD stuff)?

The difference being, perhaps, that there are more people in the "new
school." Strength in numbers does not mean the "new school" is more correct.
It just means we hear from them more. They don't NECESSARILY have the
experience to make some decisions because, some of them have never heard the
really good stuff properly. That's OK. I'm still open to hearing what they
have to say.

I've even had some stop by to show me their latest new mic. Last time it was
a BLUE mic that (of course) looked smashing. Skipper has a gift for design.
In side by side comparisons, however, it took a proper backseat to a TLM 103
because it cost a bit less, didn't sound as good and was noisier.

I think I'm in the "middle school." I have learned from the "old school",
perhaps not enough, and I continue to seek new solutions. Will they be
cheaper? Maybe, maybe not. The Sound Devices 744T is cheaper than a Nagra D
and appears to have the company backing to support anything that may go wrong
with it. Still, it's a pricey piece of gear.

The MCA SP-1 mic from Marshall appears to have been an extraordinary value at
$39. If/when it breaks, will Marshall fix it? Well, probably not because at
$39, the back and forth shipping will cost more.

And, before I forget, the one thing that we really have to be aware of is
falling for the "If one $39 mic sounds really good, then the next one (or
fifty off the line will as well" and the "Hey, all $39 mics rule!"
oversimplification. They are the 2nd corollary of the, "Gee it looks like a
Neumann, guess it must sound like one too." oversimplification.

Do they actually make any money on it or did they do it in an attempt to keep
the market from drifting lower? Does any company have the power to do that
with one product in this market? What was it's actual cost? How long will it
work? At $39, how long would be proper? Are we entering a period in which
mics are like socks? Use 'em till they wear out then toss 'em and buy a new
one?

Anyway, this perennial "old fart-young fart argument" is simply that. They
divide and conquer. Wonder what would happen if that weren't possible. Wonder
what would happen if more of us joined together in the pursuit of good audio
instead of jabbing at each other over whether cheap new stuff sounded as good
as old good stuff.

I'm on my way to AES in NY. Maybe I'll find out.

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

[[email protected]]

On Oct 3, 7:52 am, Ty Ford wrote:
The only real difference I see in this string and others is that the "new
school" has become more literate than the "old school." Otherwise it's the
same argument we have had here for years.

"Is the new stuff as good as the old GOOD stuff (not to be confused with the
old BAD stuff)?

The difference being, perhaps, that there are more people in the "new
school." Strength in numbers does not mean the "new school" is more correct.
It just means we hear from them more. They don't NECESSARILY have the
experience to make some decisions because, some of them have never heard the
really good stuff properly. That's OK. I'm still open to hearing what they
have to say.

I've even had some stop by to show me their latest new mic. Last time it was
a BLUE mic that (of course) looked smashing. Skipper has a gift for design.
In side by side comparisons, however, it took a proper backseat to a TLM 103
because it cost a bit less, didn't sound as good and was noisier.

I think I'm in the "middle school." I have learned from the "old school",
perhaps not enough, and I continue to seek new solutions. Will they be
cheaper? Maybe, maybe not. The Sound Devices 744T is cheaper than a Nagra D
and appears to have the company backing to support anything that may go wrong
with it. Still, it's a pricey piece of gear.

The MCA SP-1 mic from Marshall appears to have been an extraordinary value at
$39. If/when it breaks, will Marshall fix it? Well, probably not because at
$39, the back and forth shipping will cost more.

And, before I forget, the one thing that we really have to be aware of is
falling for the "If one $39 mic sounds really good, then the next one (or
fifty off the line will as well" and the "Hey, all $39 mics rule!"
oversimplification. They are the 2nd corollary of the, "Gee it looks like a
Neumann, guess it must sound like one too." oversimplification.

Do they actually make any money on it or did they do it in an attempt to keep
the market from drifting lower? Does any company have the power to do that
with one product in this market? What was it's actual cost? How long will it
work? At $39, how long would be proper? Are we entering a period in which
mics are like socks? Use 'em till they wear out then toss 'em and buy a new
one?

Anyway, this perennial "old fart-young fart argument" is simply that. They
divide and conquer. Wonder what would happen if that weren't possible. Wonder
what would happen if more of us joined together in the pursuit of good audio
instead of jabbing at each other over whether cheap new stuff sounded as good
as old good stuff.

I'm on my way to AES in NY. Maybe I'll find out.

Regards,

Ty Ford

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

I've modified over 200 MCA SP-1's. I own 15 myself. They don't break
unless you drop them. The caps are crap but the models I use prevent
future problems. Many customers prefer them over their expensive
Neumann's. Not hard to believe if you compare the components on the
inside after the capsule.

I love my 5 modified AKG 460 B's. These have beat Schoeps, B+K,
Neumann M-50's and many others in shootouts. One guy in Europe sold
his pair of M-50's for $40,000 after he got the pair of 460's. Simply
the most revealing, smoothest most natural mic I've ever heard. I call
them the detachable ear.

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades

[Mike Rivers]

On Oct 3, 10:04 am, "Soundhaspriority" wrote:

David Grant is not getting the latest state of affairs. Because of the
conservatism of sound professionals, he is getting what was true five years
ago. This doesn't serve him well, and longterm, it doesn't serve a lot of
people well.

This is always the way it is. Consumer products are always ahead of
professional products. Consumers had the DAT and then the
professionals adopted it. Consumers had digital cameras and then
professionals adopted them. Consumers get PCs with Vista while pros
are still sticking with their XP or even Win98 systems. Consumers had
Studio Projects mics and now a few professionals are cautiously
adopting them.

In the pro sound field, sound quality isn't always the top priority,
nor is value. It's dependabiilty and versatility, and it takes a long
time in the market for those to build up to the point where a
professional is confident to use the product - by which time, given
the nature of consumer products, it's been replaced by a newer model.

If he wants advice about a product that hasn't yet taken the
professional community by storm, he should go to where more of the
home recording folks hang out. I'll concede that a lot of them hang
out right here, so perhaps he should be looking for advice from folks
like you rather than the Tys or the Scotts or even me. In their world,
I'm sure they're just as credible.

[David Grant]

In the pro sound field, sound quality isn't always the top priority,
nor is value. It's dependabiilty and versatility, and it takes a long
time in the market for those to build up to the point where a
professional is confident to use the product - by which time, given
the nature of consumer products, it's been replaced by a newer model.

Also, I've lost enough money due to depreciation of chinese mics that I now
really want something I know will hold its value. It's entirely possible the
C4 will hold its value, or maybe even go up in value if it builds its
reputation, but I'm not into taking risks at the moment. If I had more cash
to throw around I might.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Fran Guidry]

On Oct 2, 5:39 am, "David Grant" wrote:
Generally, from what I've read the top of the line is:
Schoeps, DPA, Josephson Series 6

With an upper-middle class consisting of:
Sennheiser MKH 40

With a middle class consisting of:
Josephson C42, Neumann KM184, AudioTechnica 4051

I own C42s and use them for piano recording and as an ambient stereo pair. I
find them too bright for my taste and would like to upgrade (I have a bit of
money to spend). I think the Schoeps, DPA and Joesphson 6s are out of my
price range for now. I'm looking in the $1100 per mic (new) range.

How/where does the AKG C480 fit in? Has anyone heard the MKH 8040 (might be
out of range, I haven't found a price)?

What other options do I have for an upgrade? Is it adviseable to wait if I
can and save for one of the heavy hitters?

Thanks,

Dave

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com

I've read many positive comments on the Beyer MC930. I haven't tried
them myself, however.

Fran

[Daniel Fuchs]

Fran Guidry wrote:

I've read many positive comments on the Beyer MC930. I haven't tried
them myself, however.

I was about to post the same... I don't have the 930s, but I have a pair
of their predecessors (MC 803), which are excellent.

The Beyers are definitely worth considering/auditioning.


Daniel

[Daniel Fuchs]

Fletch wrote:


I've been pondering a pair of Microtech Gefell M-300s. But I haven't
test driven them yet. I've heard good things about them, but need to
test them myself to be sure they are what I want. It is said they are
like the old KM 84s...

I'v tried them, and didn't like them. I used them in an orchestra
recording setup. I mostly disliked their colored off-axis sound, but I
also wasn't exactly happy with the on-axis sound on strings.

Daniel

[Robert Morein]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Oct 3, 10:04 am, "Soundhaspriority" wrote:

David Grant is not getting the latest state of affairs. Because of the
conservatism of sound professionals, he is getting what was true five
years
ago. This doesn't serve him well, and longterm, it doesn't serve a lot
of
people well.

This is always the way it is. Consumer products are always ahead of
professional products.
[snip]

The C-4 is not a home product, and it is not a consumer product. Very few
users of these mikes refer to them in connection with "project studios."
The mike is too neutral to interest the vast majority of home users, who
seek to "improve" their voices or guitars. The C-4 does nothing to "make a
voice stand out in the mix", nor is it particularly good at guitar, because
it is designed for distance miking.

A conversation with the designer revealed that the C-4 is intended to
emulate the best of small diaphragm microphones without the coloration so
attractive to the musical consumer. The main limitation is in the precision
of machining of the backplate, but there was still more money to throw at
this than with gaudier, cheaper designs. While it is interesting that Ty
remarks favorably about a $39 mike, the C-4 runs about $180 per mike, though
they are sold only in pairs.

It appears that the principle buyers of these mikes are small budget
nonprofits, such as schools and churches, and the occasional semi-pro
individual such as myself. I use them with fully professional recorders and
preamps.

Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511

[Robert Morein]

"David Grant" wrote in message
.. .



In the pro sound field, sound quality isn't always the top priority,
nor is value. It's dependabiilty and versatility, and it takes a long
time in the market for those to build up to the point where a
professional is confident to use the product - by which time, given
the nature of consumer products, it's been replaced by a newer model.

Also, I've lost enough money due to depreciation of chinese mics that I
now really want something I know will hold its value. It's entirely
possible the C4 will hold its value, or maybe even go up in value if it
builds its reputation, but I'm not into taking risks at the moment. If I
had more cash to throw around I might.
You're assuming that the standard choices will hold their value because they
have. But if the flux of change hits microphones the way it has hit
everything else, your expensive investments will devalue.

So much we believe is precious and enduring turns out not to be.

Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511

[drichard]

Hi Jim,

What do you charge for your SP1 mods?

Dean

On Oct 3, 10:25 am, wrote:
On Oct 3, 7:52 am, Ty Ford wrote:





The only real difference I see in this string and others is that the "new
school" has become more literate than the "old school." Otherwise it's the
same argument we have had here for years.

"Is the new stuff as good as the old GOOD stuff (not to be confused with the
old BAD stuff)?

The difference being, perhaps, that there are more people in the "new
school." Strength in numbers does not mean the "new school" is more correct.
It just means we hear from them more. They don't NECESSARILY have the
experience to make some decisions because, some of them have never heard the
really good stuff properly. That's OK. I'm still open to hearing what they
have to say.

I've even had some stop by to show me their latest new mic. Last time it was
a BLUE mic that (of course) looked smashing. Skipper has a gift for design.
In side by side comparisons, however, it took a proper backseat to a TLM 103
because it cost a bit less, didn't sound as good and was noisier.

I think I'm in the "middle school." I have learned from the "old school",
perhaps not enough, and I continue to seek new solutions. Will they be
cheaper? Maybe, maybe not. The Sound Devices 744T is cheaper than a Nagra D
and appears to have the company backing to support anything that may go wrong
with it. Still, it's a pricey piece of gear.

The MCA SP-1 mic from Marshall appears to have been an extraordinary value at
$39. If/when it breaks, will Marshall fix it? Well, probably not because at
$39, the back and forth shipping will cost more.

And, before I forget, the one thing that we really have to be aware of is
falling for the "If one $39 mic sounds really good, then the next one (or
fifty off the line will as well" and the "Hey, all $39 mics rule!"
oversimplification. They are the 2nd corollary of the, "Gee it looks like a
Neumann, guess it must sound like one too." oversimplification.

Do they actually make any money on it or did they do it in an attempt to keep
the market from drifting lower? Does any company have the power to do that
with one product in this market? What was it's actual cost? How long will it
work? At $39, how long would be proper? Are we entering a period in which
mics are like socks? Use 'em till they wear out then toss 'em and buy a new
one?

Anyway, this perennial "old fart-young fart argument" is simply that. They
divide and conquer. Wonder what would happen if that weren't possible. Wonder
what would happen if more of us joined together in the pursuit of good audio
instead of jabbing at each other over whether cheap new stuff sounded as good
as old good stuff.

I'm on my way to AES in NY. Maybe I'll find out.

Regards,

Ty Ford

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

I've modified over 200 MCA SP-1's. I own 15 myself. They don't break
unless you drop them. The caps are crap but the models I use prevent
future problems. Many customers prefer them over their expensive
Neumann's. Not hard to believe if you compare the components on the
inside after the capsule.

I love my 5 modified AKG 460 B's. These have beat Schoeps, B+K,
Neumann M-50's and many others in shootouts. One guy in Europe sold
his pair of M-50's for $40,000 after he got the pair of 460's. Simply
the most revealing, smoothest most natural mic I've ever heard. I call
them the detachable ear.

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

[Mike Rivers]

On Oct 4, 12:52 am, "Robert Morein" wrote:

The C-4 is not a home product, and it is not a consumer product.

Says who? Those are very loose definitions (and I know that). But the
fact that you don't find too many of them in professional book-by-the-
hour studios (when you can even find those studios nowadays) suggests
that no matter what the designer intended, they aren't getting much
use in what could be clearly viewed as a "professional" studio.

Very few
users of these mikes refer to them in connection with "project studios."

Nobody likes to be called a a "project studio" or "home studio." I
think the current politically correct name is "personal" or "artist"
studio.

The mike is too neutral to interest the vast majority of home users, who
seek to "improve" their voices or guitars.

I thought they used compressors and preamps for that.

A conversation with the designer revealed that the C-4 is intended to
emulate the best of small diaphragm microphones without the coloration so
attractive to the musical consumer.

You don't see too many people who look for a "colored" mic. They all
want "the best" mic. I'm sure there's nothing wrong or undesirable
about the sound of the C-4. More people should learn to work with a
mic like that and use other tools to change the sound of what's going
into it. The on-axis frequency response of most mics is pretty much
the same other than how they do a "presence" peak, but the off-axis
response tends to be quite different from one model to another.

This is the sort of thing that people could learn to use for a certain
degree of control. A mic with good off-axis response tends to not
change much when you use it "wrong" or, more important, allows you to
take advantage of what's coming into it from the wrong direction. But
whether you want off-axis sound or not, good off-axis sound is better
than bad off-axis sound. The difference between a "pro" and a
"personal" studio is that there's less nasty off-axis stuff in the pro
studio (more space, better acoustical design, more experience in
choosing and placing mics).

It appears that the principle buyers of these mikes are small budget
nonprofits, such as schools and churches, and the occasional semi-pro
individual such as myself.

There's a good market there, and schools and churches tend to have
applications that don't call for close mic placement, so it's a good
choice for them.

[David Grant]

You're assuming that the standard choices will hold their value because
they
have. But if the flux of change hits microphones the way it has hit
everything else, your expensive investments will devalue.

My impression is that both ends of the chain (microphones and loudspeakers)
are less prone to this phenomenon than other devices in the recording chain
because they are, by necessity, mechanical devices that will always require
a higher degree of precision engineering and manufacturing. Any device
inbetween can be digital and can realize manufacturing cost savings
associated with being so.

Admittedly I don't know much about the manufacturing process, but this is
the impression i've somehow aquired.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Arny Krueger]

"David Grant" wrote in message

You're assuming that the standard choices will hold
their value because they
have. But if the flux of change hits microphones the way
it has hit everything else, your expensive investments
will devalue.

My impression is that both ends of the chain (microphones
and loudspeakers) are less prone to this phenomenon than
other devices in the recording chain because they are, by
necessity, mechanical devices that will always require a
higher degree of precision engineering and manufacturing.

However, one of the long term trends in manufacturing has been that
precision is becoming far less expensive. Precison used to imply skilled
hand work, but now eliminating skilled hand work is a working strategy for
obtaining more efficient production.

Any device inbetween can be digital and can realize
manufacturing cost savings associated with being so.

AFAIK we have no professional-grade innately digital microphones, nor do we
have any high fidelity loudspeakers that are strictly speaking digital.

However, engineering and production economies associated with digital
technology has or will shortly favorably impact both loudspeakers and
microphones. For example, loudspeaker crossovers based on digital technology
can materially improve the performance of loudspeaker systems. We are on the
verge, or just past the verge of moving conversion to digital out into the
microphone.

The price-performance of loudspeaker drivers has been steadily improving for
the reasons stated above. Also, we have simply learned more about what makes
a speaker driver good, and developed more diverse ways to make good speaker
drivers.

[Richard Crowley]

"Arny Krueger" wrote ...
AFAIK we have no professional-grade innately digital
microphones,

Well, there is the Neumann D-01. But I generally agree
with everything else you wrote.

[David Grant]

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" wrote ...
AFAIK we have no professional-grade innately digital microphones,

Well, there is the Neumann D-01. But I generally agree
with everything else you wrote.

You can put the A/D as close as you want after the capsule, my point was the
capsule will always be a mechanical analog device.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Richard Crowley]

"David Grant" wrote ...
"Richard Crowley" wrote ...
"Arny Krueger" wrote ...
AFAIK we have no professional-grade innately digital microphones,

Well, there is the Neumann D-01. But I generally agree
with everything else you wrote.

You can put the A/D as close as you want after the capsule, my point
was the capsule will always be a mechanical analog device.

And you can drive a speaker cone with a stepper
motor (etc.) But microphones and speakers will
always be, at the end, analog devices because we
humans are analog devices and most of the musical
instruments we still use are analog.

Unless you want to volunteer for a direct USB port
in your cranium or an AES/EBU port in your ear? :-)

[Ty Ford]

On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 13:09:20 -0400, David Grant wrote
(in article ):




In the pro sound field, sound quality isn't always the top priority,
nor is value. It's dependabiilty and versatility, and it takes a long
time in the market for those to build up to the point where a
professional is confident to use the product - by which time, given
the nature of consumer products, it's been replaced by a newer model.

Also, I've lost enough money due to depreciation of chinese mics that I now
really want something I know will hold its value. It's entirely possible the
C4 will hold its value, or maybe even go up in value if it builds its
reputation, but I'm not into taking risks at the moment. If I had more cash
to throw around I might.

Given that we are trying to keep apples and apples, is that similar to "I
can't afford to buy cheap"?

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

[David Grant]

And you can drive a speaker cone with a stepper
motor (etc.) But microphones and speakers will
always be, at the end, analog devices because we
humans are analog devices and most of the musical
instruments we still use are analog.

Unless you want to volunteer for a direct USB port
in your cranium or an AES/EBU port in your ear? :-)

As long as the D/N converter is of good quality, sign me up!

(That's Digitial to Neural)

And if it worked the other way and let me record my thoughts as audio to my
ipod then I wouldn't keep forgetting what it was I went down to the basement
to find.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[David Grant]

"Ty Ford" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 13:09:20 -0400, David Grant wrote
(in article ):




In the pro sound field, sound quality isn't always the top priority,
nor is value. It's dependabiilty and versatility, and it takes a long
time in the market for those to build up to the point where a
professional is confident to use the product - by which time, given
the nature of consumer products, it's been replaced by a newer model.

Also, I've lost enough money due to depreciation of chinese mics that I
now
really want something I know will hold its value. It's entirely possible
the
C4 will hold its value, or maybe even go up in value if it builds its
reputation, but I'm not into taking risks at the moment. If I had more
cash
to throw around I might.

Given that we are trying to keep apples and apples, is that similar to "I
can't afford to buy cheap"?

Regards,

Ty Ford

I realized the irony when I wrote it but it seems true.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com