Good all Around Mic

[Tim Armstrong]

You can drive nails with them, too!



Tim

[flipside]

Originally Posted by Old Cane

I've said all I can and still haven't convinced you that a C12 sounds better than an MXL.

I don't remember the subject even coming up. So an AKG C12 is sooooo special that you should be able to pick a recording made with one out of a lineup of several mics eh? Would you care to try? Better yet...care to wager on it?

[Tim Armstrong]

Hey guys, take it outside, or else I'll be locking this thread down and y'all will be sitting in the penalty box.

Tim

[flipside]

Originally Posted by Tim Armstrong

Hey guys, take it outside, or else I'll be locking this thread down and y'all will be sitting in the penalty box.

Tim

What's that about? If I did something wrong I'm sorry. I just thought it would be a fun test to do. I do tests like these all the time. I shoot a lot of video as well and have a test up for people who would like to to see if they can tell film from video-tape. The test has a point in that, if a person cannot tell which stills are taken from progressive frame video from stills taken from film, then any perceived notions about film being either better or different looking from video must be in the motion. You can't have too many tests in my world. Do you remember several years back when we used to see posts all over the internet about how some people had it in their heads that one wave app created better sounding waves than another apparently because they recorded them better? Fact is that a wave is a wave and they are all recorded exactly the same. And how often do we still hear someone say that mp3s sound worse than waves even though once you get past 256k with mp3s you're mostly just removing dead space from those wave files, so there is no real difference to hear. People are very good at fooling themselves. Being skeptical is being rational, but we need to start with our own perceptions. That's my only point.

[slowpinky]

"People are very good at fooling themselves. Being skeptical is being rational, but we need to start with our own perceptions. That's my only point".

I'm in partial agreement with you flipside... In the end , it'll be a combination of perception and budget - and the weird way they interact. I do advise my students for instance on instruments that can cover alot of bases - until they have the wallet to afford some specialist gear - but I try and steer them toward the best 'sounding' axe they can scrub up the cash for . Ive only had a few years of recording myself out of many many years playing and being recorded -but wouldnt the same would go for mikes?
Experienced engineers and fellow musicians wax lyrical to me about how good such and such a bit of pricey and exclusive gear is and I've been left wondering what I was missing in the end result - and others pull great tones from a cheap bit of gear they happen to know very well - but in the end everyone wants the gear to help , not hinder the process.
Is there a strong pedagogy in the argument that EVERYONE should own an SM57?- that's another thread I reckon. Tim's deceptively flippant point about it being capable of banging nails resonates with my idea of a good tough beginner instrument. Still - it depends on whether one can afford a better sounding dynamic mike. Ive found multiple uses for a Beyer M88 - which, though more expensive and I dare say so not so good for carpentry, is not $2000, and, is better sounding than alot of other dynamics (to me). And I'll stick by the B1 for the same reason that many people like an SM57 - because its cheap - simple, and better than a truckful of other mikes that are 4 times as expensive.

[StuH]

Originally Posted by flipside

Do you remember several years back when we used to see posts all over the internet about how some people had it in their heads that one wave app created better sounding waves than another apparently because they recorded them better? Fact is that a wave is a wave and they are all recorded exactly the same. And how often do we still hear someone say that mp3s sound worse than waves even though once you get past 256k with mp3s you're mostly just removing dead space from those wave files, so there is no real difference to hear. People are very good at fooling themselves. Being skeptical is being rational, but we need to start with our own perceptions. That's my only point.

I respectfully disagree with your opinions on this.
You can yeild different sounding results depending what software program you use just by comparing the affect of the software's basic mix engine alone. I will guarentee you that a wave file produced in Propellerheads Record program will sound much different than a wave file produced in Sonar. Mix engines are not necessarily coded to be transparent. Record's sound engine is modelled on the SSL 900k mixing desk. You will commonly hear comparrisons between DAWs as one being more analog sounding, or one being more digital, or one being more transparent, and one being more colored. I don't think this is an audio illusion but rather the result of programming, either by choice or accidental.

I bounce wave files down to MP3 at 320khz and notice a difference. You loose alot of transients, especially reverb tails, and high end presence. I'm pretty sure this isn't an audio illusion either but is the result of compressed audio.

[StuH]

.....but at the same time,
Speaking about the different recording apps, you can't really say one has a better sound quality than the other, as this is a matter of personal taste.

If that is what you where getting at I agree.

[flipside]

You can yeild different sounding results depending what software program you use just by comparing the affect of the software's basic mix engine alone.

But that's not what I said. I said they all record waves in exactly the same way. I said nothing about how the sound is manipulated afterwards. A wav is a wav though providing it's the same type of wav. It might be more kosher to say a PCM Wav is a PCM Wav etc. But they are all recorded in the same way, and a mix engine does nothing to alter the sound unless you tell it to. If I record the same input signal to both Sonar and Audition simultaneously, I can take the resulting wav from either app and bring it into the other app, flip the wave backwards and it will cause the previous wav to cancel out perfectly. It's the same scenario for any recording app.

I bounce wave files down to MP3 at 320khz and notice a difference.

I believe you just think you do. I've done a ton of tests with people over the years on this. What I do is to take a ten second 16/44 wav sample from a CD and copy it five times. I then take one of those copies and drop it down to a 256k mp3 and then bump it back up to a 16/44 wav like the others. Afterwards I lock all the files into a Flash file and let them try to guess which is the altered one. Not one person has ever been able to consistently tell me which is the altered one. In fact, I've done the same tests with wma files dropping them all the way to 160k and back again and no one has ever been able to tell me which is which with those either. We actually had a lot of fun doing tests like that in Audition's old forum once.

I'll run you through the test if you like. People are usually surprised to find that they aren't really seeing or hearing what they think they are. I always like to remind them that our ears are the first thing to go. We start losing our hearing around the age of 14 or 15. Only very young children are capable of hearing from 20 to 20k Hertz. By the time we're 16 it's down to 18k of high-end. Then when we hit 30 or so it's already down to 16k. Any man over 50 who can still hear a loud signal past 14k is not human. Although, oddly, sometimes you'll get a hole somewhere between 14 and 17k and yet can still hear tones at 18k, but any higher tones that you can still hear will be way down in volume.

[slowpinky]

Originally Posted by flipside

Then when we hit 30 or so it's already down to 16k. Any man over 50 who can still hear a loud signal past 14k is not human. Although, oddly, sometimes you'll get a hole somewhere between 14 and 17k and yet can still hear tones at 18k

mmm - is that anywhere in the range of the average female voice?

[StuH]

Originally Posted by flipside

But that's not what I said. I said they all record waves in exactly the same way. I said nothing about how the sound is manipulated afterwards. A wav is a wav though providing it's the same type of wav. It might be more kosher to say a PCM Wav is a PCM Wav etc. But they are all recorded in the same way, and a mix engine does nothing to alter the sound unless you tell it to. If I record the same input signal to both Sonar and Audition simultaneously, I can take the resulting wav from either app and bring it into the other app, flip the wave backwards and it will cause the previous wav to cancel out perfectly. It's the same scenario for any recording app.

With that clarification I agree 100%

Originally Posted by flipside

I believe you just think you do. I've done a ton of tests with people over the years on this. What I do is to take a ten second 16/44 wav sample from a CD and copy it five times. I then take one of those copies and drop it down to a 256k mp3 and then bump it back up to a 16/44 wav like the others. Afterwards I lock all the files into a Flash file and let them try to guess which is the altered one. Not one person has ever been able to consistently tell me which is the altered one. In fact, I've done the same tests with wma files dropping them all the way to 160k and back again and no one has ever been able to tell me which is which with those either. We actually had a lot of fun doing tests like that in Audition's old forum once.

I'll run you through the test if you like. People are usually surprised to find that they aren't really seeing or hearing what they think they are. I always like to remind them that our ears are the first thing to go. We start losing our hearing around the age of 14 or 15. Only very young children are capable of hearing from 20 to 20k Hertz. By the time we're 16 it's down to 18k of high-end. Then when we hit 30 or so it's already down to 16k. Any man over 50 who can still hear a loud signal past 14k is not human. Although, oddly, sometimes you'll get a hole somewhere between 14 and 17k and yet can still hear tones at 18k, but any higher tones that you can still hear will be way down in volume.

I have hearing test done every year, requirement of the industry I'm in and I can tell you that my hearing is well beyond the average. Believe me I can hear a difference. Reverb tails, and especially cymbals and hats. Maybe I'm an exception.

[flipside]

Keep in mind I said that some people can still hear tones sometimes at 18k or so if they're over 50, but that those tones will be very soft in volume compared to the lower tones. So while we may hear this very faint 18k tone in the headphones when it's played by itself, we won't be able to hear them in a normal music situation because the louder lower tones will mask them completely. So I'm not doubting that you can hear some high tones in a hearing test. I'm doubting that it will matter in a normal music situation though.

[flipside]

Originally Posted by slowpinky

mmm - is that anywhere in the range of the average female voice?

Maybe Olive Oyl.

[StuH]

Lets clarify again the wave issue.

I agree with you providing you are talking about pulling the raw wave file staight out of the DAW so it is not manipulated at all by the audio engine of the host.

Is this what you are saying or are you refering to bounced audio?

[StuH]

Never mind....reread and see you are refering to the wave file just after recording.

[mudbean]

Originally Posted by flipside

This first sound file is flat.

This 2nd one is from a documentary I used it on and is EQ'ed for television/theatre, so a lot of bass is rolled off which also makes the narration sit in the music bed better.

Wow, this thread has wandered off into left field ...

So, am I to take it that you think these clips sound good?

mud

[flipside]

The documentary clip has already garnered best soundtrack at two of the three festivals it's played at. Do you know how to EQ for television speakers? The first clip is completely flat and wasn't run through a dopey tube preamp to exagerate the highs and lows as is usually the case. Do you know another mic that sounds better flat and without running through a tube pre?

At any rate my vacation is over and I must return to the real world. I'll leave you guys to it.

[StuH]

Flipside, I visited your website. Nicely done by the way and some nice compositions you have made.

Anyway I went to your ART Tube vs Behringer mp3 test and notice a considerable difference between the two. The art tube is very pleasant sounding. Nice bottom and low mids; and sounds smoother and warmer. The behringer doesn't sound as smooth, not as much bottom, the mids are slightly higher and over all sound colder.

I'm not BSing, they sound noticeably different to my ears.

[mudbean]

Originally Posted by flipside

At any rate my vacation is over and I must return to the real world. I'll leave you guys to it.

Wish I could say I'll miss you, sir ... but, honestly, it's going to take alot of typing to address all of the nonsense that you have smeared all over this thread. Best of luck, take care.

mud

[Old Cane]

I guess garnering best soundtrack means something. I've been to a few award shows and I'd love to reposses the intruments from some of the winners. Anyway it was awfully sssssy, if you ask me, and you did, both tracks. I'm sorry.

I just don't meet many 50 year olds that call a tube preamp dopey. I guess it depends on the preamp, huh? I'm not sure it's the preamp that's dopey if you've had trouble with a Manley or Pendulum or UA. And I'm pretty sure there are a lot of popular solid state preamps out there like maybe Neve and API and so on. I hear they are even built in to some of those $100,000 consoles nobody is using anymore. Are they dopey or maybe just sneezy? Oh, well. Like Mud said, we've got some work to do now. I don't know of anybody else from my generation that thinks mp3s are as good as wave files and that's about what I got out of your posts.

Nobody is saying there is anything wrong with the mic you chose. It's fine. All I was trying to point out is a U47, U67 and C12s are kind of an industry standard for big vocal mics. I'll guess that's for a reason. Maybe you think a Teisco is as good as a custom telecaster built to order by a master craftsman. Of course, you must if we follow your logic. The days of $100+ guitars are over, huh? And who needs a a dopey tube amp? Not me, boy. I'm going direct from now on.

So back to what this post is supposed to be about, if your goal is to create mp3s, why not just use a 57 like I've been saying all along? You think a 57 is junk. SO, garbage in, garbage out, like my mama used to say. I wish I still had picture of her behind the Trident scolding me for not using a coaster.

I'll sure miss you. I've heard about the real world. Maybe some day I'll come visit. Keep the light on.

[mudbean]

Originally Posted by Old Cane

I guess garnering best soundtrack means something.

It means one thing, and one thing only: The other entries sucked worse.

Folks, please allow me to go "on record" here with a huge disclaimer: I AM AN AUDIO ENGINEERING HOBBYIST. I have not progressed very far,at all, down my path to recording & mixing nirvana.

HOWEVER, one thing I have learned to do is LISTEN. Listen inside the music, listen inside the sound. I don't need to be a good AE to be able to hear crappy recording & mixing, just like I can tell bad guitar playing when I hear it, even though I don't play well.

Just my opinion, worth what you paid for it ...

mud

[Old Cane]

You promised you weren't going to talk about my guitar playing anymore.

[mudbean]

mud

[tboy]

Originally Posted by slowpinky

mmm - is that anywhere in the range of the average female voice?

Female voice fundamentals, even the highest voices, sit at far lower freqs. C8 on a piano is about 4K. That's a high note to sing. The overtones reach way beyond, but the debate rages as, as witnessed above in previous posts, as to the audible effects of freqs up in the 15/16k, and higher ranges. Personally, I record, perform, mix and listen to music; performance/song/emotion. I don't give a crap about the dog hearing-level frequencies included or excluded from the performance of a piece of music that moves me, but that's me.

[Old Cane]

Well, I think you have the threshold set too high on your sense of humor limiter.

The old married guys got the joke.

[tboy]

Got me. Ouch!