A Fascinating Program - Making An Original Professional Tube Mic w/o Compromise

[alohachris]

Aloha Fran,

Buying a single piece of more expensive gear alone will never help anyone who is lacking in skill, complimentary gear of a high level, or a decent space - to produce a better live or recorded sound.

For longtime pro's, who use the best proponents in their signal chains without the limitations of most players' chains here - most can easily hear differences in gear. That's why they invest in gear that has a higher price tag - status issues aside. It's because high-end mic's are usually much more useful & better tools when used in high-end signal chains. And, it's because they have the skills to maximize better gear.

I've been auditioning all kinds of mic's now for decades. My projects are non-commercial & I rarely invite anyone to record here. I don't care about status, only results. I get a fundamental charge out of playing & listening to my music played through a fantastic microphone. Some of my favorites are definitely less-than-high-end mic's that get used more often than much more expensive mic's here. Depends on the application, right?

Even though I am definitely getting older, when listening LIVE (not online) I still can hear subtle differences among microphones when used in a signal chain made up of pro-level components in a treated space.

The conclusion I've made is that for me, in terms of mic's, you really do get what you pay for, especially as you move up the trough. But your skill level & quality of your signal chain & space determine if you actually can maximize a high-end mic. Anyone can buy a great mic. It's much harder to use it effectively & appropriately. Don't I know that now, Ha.

However, that is not always the case & there are exceptions. For example, I'd never buy a new Neumann LDC - any model. I've auditioned most of them. The new Neumann's have become status symbols & they really do not sound as good as other brands or often, as good as their predecessors. Ex.:Audition a new U87ai & compare it to a 1970 U87.

If you have used mic's in performance every night or in various studios for over five decades, you develop a sense of those aforementioned subtle differences in mic's. Without that experience, I think it is more difficult to hear/feel them clearly, & as Dirk Brauner said, to justify buying a high end mic. It's almost impossible to discern them in online recordings.

We ALL hear differently. It's fantastic that we have so many choices at so many levels. But putting down the value of high-end gear to guitar players interested in learning about their options is counter-productive, IMO. Most of us do NOT know what's out there beyond the "2020" entry-level mic realm. I think it's important that we share that knowledge about better equipment here when appropriate. In reality, the "best" mic is always in the ear of the beholder.

RE: Online audio shoot-outs. They ARE fun. I'm glad you have provided so many for us, Fran, & all the work that goes into doing it right as you do. But they are not often useful TO ME in terms of truly judging the total quality of a microphone, IMO. Only a live audition in your own studio can provide that, IMO. The quality of online audio is always suspect & I think they erase clear differences between the VM-1's & 2020's of the mic world.

What hundreds of those microphone auditions have told me is that usually, more expensive microphones ARE better than cheaper, mass-produced, Chinese microphones. That is especially true for how they sound. For example: the first issue is always the excessive noise of lesser mic's. That is almost invariable.

At this stage, I'd much rather use a Brauner VM-1 made by a small group of craftsman who care & who love to make quality microphones w/o compromise than a 2020 for recording. I'm sure that Doug Young would agree. (Sure, he'll use the 2020's, but probably not on any of his commercial recordings, right Doug?)

We all hear differently. Try out as many mic's as you can LIVE, guys/gals - even the expensive one's! There are so many great choices today!

A Hui Hou
alohachris

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by alohachris

A
For longtime pro's, who use the best proponents in their signal chains without the limitations of most players' chains here - most can easily hear differences in gear.

I think these discussions often end up confusing two concepts: "different" and "better". Different is easy to detect, if not with your ears, at least with measurement techniques. "Better" is subjective. I can't speak for Fran, but I never claim there's no difference between mics, only that the differences are more subtle than many people say (in most cases - there are mics that sound totally different), and easily dwarfed by mic position, guitar, technique, room acoustics, etc, all of which *may* cause larger differences. But "better" is much harder to quantify. I think we should be able to appreciate a fine meal from a top chef, and the experience that goes with it (nice dining room, comfy chairs, whatever) and still admit that a hot dog from a street vender can be pretty darn tasty. Not the "same", but there's times when someone might just prefer the hot dog! So I appreciate the quality that goes into a Brauner, but I could easily make a pro-quality recording with the ATs and no one would notice if I didn't tell you which mics I used.

There's also just the difference in construction quality. All you have to see is the Brauner mic cable to see that this is a quality-first product. But you may or may not care about that. We should be able appreciate it, tho.

As long as I'm rambling, the listening environment obviously matters a lot when trying to hear subtle differences between mics. Fran and I did a shoot out between Schoeps and some Sankens a few years back. We both concluded the difference was too small to matter, and I didn't buy the Sankens. As I recall, using my Dynaudio monitors, I couldn't even be sure I heard a difference. A few months ago, someone asked about that test, and I dug up the files. On my since upgraded monitors, I hear a much bigger difference between those mics than I recall. The difference is pretty obvious. But I still wouldn't be able to decide on "better", just different flavors of good.

Even though I am definitely getting older, when listening LIVE (not online) I still can hear subtle differences among microphones when used in a signal chain made up of pro-level components in a treated space.

I've heard others say this, and it certainly confuses me. You mean that if I send you a 24/96K recording that something gets lost that isn't lost when you play back a recording you made? The only things I can think of that could be lost are knowledge of what mics were used (thereby allowing you to be biased), and having heard the original instrument naturally in the studio. I don't care about the latter, I'm not striving for accuracy, I'd be perfectly happy if a recording sounded fantastic even if the guitar didn't sound like that in person. But I can understand some people might want accuracy, warts and all.

The area where I can see that in person you can tell more of a difference is in mic setup, and how the mics respond to different placements. Some mics are very picky about placement, others seem to sound good no matter where you put them and are therefore easier to position. Oddly, I find the Brauners to be less forgiving about placement that some other mics. I spent a lot of time trying different placements when I first got them, and ended up loving them in a spaced pair setup, but not being happy at all with them in X/Y or MS. The Schoeps, on the other hand sound fine spaced, XY, MS, ORTF, etc. I haven't put any energy into the ATs, there're just not that important given the other mics I have available - they're $59 backups for when I need more mics. But this is all in the interaction/setup phase. Once I've hit record, I don't see why you listening back to a 24/96K file you just recorded vs one I send you should reveal any different information.

To put it another way, if no one can hear the difference between 2 mics once the recording leaves the studio, does it matter?

[rick-slo]

Not that different than guitars. In recordings especially, often the "lower end" guitars sound better and are more easily recorded than the high priced ones. It's application and taste dependent.

[Fran Guidry]

Originally Posted by alohachris

Aloha Fran,

Buying a single piece of more expensive gear alone will never help anyone who is lacking in skill, complimentary gear of a high level, or a decent space - to produce a better live or recorded sound.

I would say that buying a truckload of gear will not help a person lacking skill make a compelling recording.

For longtime pro's, who use the best proponents in their signal chains without the limitations of most players' chains here - most can easily hear differences in gear. That's why they invest in gear that has a higher price tag - status issues aside. It's because high-end mic's are usually much more useful & better tools when used in high-end signal chains. And, it's because they have the skills to maximize better gear.

There's absolutely no evidence that this is true in my experience, and in fact I've read interviews with working pros stating the exact opposite - they use the high end gear precisely because clients look for it. Just as they use ProTools because that is the name clients know.

...
Even though I am definitely getting older, when listening LIVE (not online) I still can hear subtle differences among microphones when used in a signal chain made up of pro-level components in a treated space.

The first rule of comparing things based on human perception - the comparison must be double blind. This is true in olive oil and wine, perfume and speakers, microphones and medicine.

... Without that experience, I think it is more difficult to hear/feel them clearly, & as Dirk Brauner said, to justify buying a high end mic. It's almost impossible to discern them in online recordings.

Wait, you're telling me that Dirk Brauner stated that his customers must be discerning and experienced and expert in their judgment? And that it's not possible to judge a device made for the specific and sole purpose of creating a recording - by listening to a recording???? Just like it's not possible to judge a Rolex by checking the time, then.

...
RE: Online audio shoot-outs. They ARE fun. I'm glad you have provided so many for us, Fran, & all the work that goes into doing it right as you do. But they are not often useful TO ME in terms of truly judging the total quality of a microphone, IMO. Only a live audition in your own studio can provide that, IMO. The quality of online audio is always suspect & I think they erase clear differences between the VM-1's & 2020's of the mic world.

So now _you_ are saying that the difference between two devices whose purpose is to make recordings cannot be judged by listening to recordings. I'm having a hard time understanding how I'm supposed to evaluate them.

What hundreds of those microphone auditions have told me is that usually, more expensive microphones ARE better than cheaper, mass-produced, Chinese microphones. That is especially true for how they sound. For example: the first issue is always the excessive noise of lesser mic's. That is almost invariable.

And I've invited you to demonstrate the audible impact of this by providing clips, dozens of times. Because after all, isn't that what's important in a recording tool - what kind of recording can I make with this thing?

Of course, there's one really important but inaudible factor in making good recordings - I call it the "Dumbo's Feather" factor. Putting up the "good" mics is part of the psychological signalling I use on myself when it's time for a real take.

Fran

[alohachris]

Fran,

Eh, why you use that tone with me, brah? Wasn't telling anyone anything, OK? Did I state anything off the wall above? Was there anything revolutionary in anything I said? No.

I'll take it further. If you only listen/compare mic's through online recordings, and NOT live, you're a fool. Just like if you buy mic's without trying them out first you are a fool; someone who's just hoping it will work & probably wasting money.

I say that each of us uses gear for a given application because we think it's Better than other gear. WE make the judgement call on what's BETTER for many reasons, but mainly with our ears. So yes, there is BETTER gear - for a given application. Again, each of us makes the call on a given mic based hopefully on experience. It's OK if mic A doesn't get a trophy when we decide that mic B is BETTER, OK?

We all hear differently, Fran. Some hear more subtle differences than others. But to "feel" the differences in mic's requires a live audition, IMO. However, online recordings, by any player, at any sampling rate, still do not give me the whole picture of any microphone - or even a passable audio snapshot.

And when was the last time that you made a recording for release using anything other than your "better" mic's, Fran? Are those 641's staying in the case because you're afraid to bring such expensive mic's out? What makes them better, Fran, if there are no differences?

To heck w/ blind tests & online audio popularity contests. I trust my own ears & touch & I really need to do that live when it comes to microphones. I'm sure that most pro engineers - despite trying to entice an increasingly status-conscious clientele - do the same. I compare notes with many of them all over the world for the fun of it. Of course, it goes without saying that recording is a VERY important part of any mic audition.

Where's da beef in that?

alohachris

[alohachris]

Sorry, Duplicate Post

[Fran Guidry]

Originally Posted by alohachris

...
And when was the last time that you made a recording for release using anything other than your "better" mic's, Fran? Are those 641's staying in the case because you're afraid to bring such expensive mic's out? What makes them better, Fran, if there are no differences?
...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTLS7unWnBM Oscar Sound Tech HM-701 and Reactive Sounds stereo omni miniature.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXtQ0PaOGW8 Same

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPEDP95uj3A Sony PCM-D50

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oXh9KgFeV8 Schoeps CMC64 and CMC54

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=en-7Zu1Yaqw Same

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqiiVI_qxas Duncan MagMic pickup into Zoom A2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXReoi5cD1g Same

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCSgxtvjr5g Sony PCM-D50

and so on and so on.

I use the tool that I think is most appropriate for the job. Sometimes I experiment. Sometimes I'm traveling and only have limited gear. But regardless, I record stuff and share it. So when I talk about gear people can refer to my published material and get an idea if my opinions have merit. Otherwise it's just talk.

Fran

[Scott Whigham]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

As long as I'm rambling, the listening environment obviously matters a lot when trying to hear subtle differences between mics. Fran and I did a shoot out between Schoeps and some Sankens a few years back. We both concluded the difference was too small to matter, and I didn't buy the Sankens. As I recall, using my Dynaudio monitors, I couldn't even be sure I heard a difference. A few months ago, someone asked about that test, and I dug up the files. On my since upgraded monitors, I hear a much bigger difference between those mics than I recall. The difference is pretty obvious. But I still wouldn't be able to decide on "better", just different flavors of good.

To me, this is one of the more frustrating things about trying to share subtleties with people on this or other forums. When Fran mentioned that "... most people preferred the ATs", my first thought was, "Well, most people are listening using their MacBook speakers" haha. I doubt that there are more than 20 people here in this small group of recording enthusiasts here who have a really finely tuned "listening environment" [1]. So I have to take so much that I read about things like this with a grain of salt - if SoAndSo175 says "It sounds great to me!", then is that how we decide what "great" sounds like? Of course not. But deciding what is good/great based on a sort of a popularity contest seems a bit silly to me. There's a pyramid here (see image - that's easier to share, I think). So if we go by popularity of replies/vote, then where does that leave the newbies who read threads trying to find out advice/opinions?

No answer from me - just rambling along with you haha



[1] Meaning that they've gone through the science part of acoustically treating their space and they are listening using good quality monitors placed according to the outcome of listening tests

[alohachris]

Aloha Fran,

That's what we do here, "talk" about gear & techniques. You & a few others consistently share your music online, throwing up links quickly at will & I commend you for that.

Most online recordings are far from useful, "gear-selecting levels", IMO, but maybe that's the medium's limitations we hear. They provide an audio snapshot at best. However, not everyone can easily do that or even chooses to do that.

But considering the diminished, compressed quality of all shared online recordings, how much of a game-changer can they really be when it comes to making a final decision in choosing gear like a good pair of studio condenser mic's?

Doing your own LIVE audition on a microphone is the only way I have found to receive all the information I need to make fully informed choices. And I use this "Just Talk" here to encourage everyone to do that before you buy a new mic. Wisdom comes in all forms here, Uncle Kaliponi.

For example, about four years ago, Doug Young shared some audio links at an interesting GS thread comparing his Schoeps 641's , his new at the time VM-1Brauners & his AEA R-88 ribbon mic.

I listened to those links many times in my studio. However, when I actually auditioned those mic's in my studio out of curiousity, live & in simple recordings I made on them, each sounded very different than those online clips - qualitatively. I actually preferred the 641 SDC more than the VM-1 LDC. And the R-88 sounded really great in my live audition, but not so great in those online clips.

Therefore, I'm not as inclined as some to put much stock into the quality of online recordings or mic shoot-out's.

A Hui Hou!

alohachris

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Fran Guidry

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTLS7unWnBM Oscar Sound Tech HM-701 and Reactive Sounds stereo omni miniature.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXtQ0PaOGW8 Same

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPEDP95uj3A Sony PCM-D50

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oXh9KgFeV8 Schoeps CMC64 and CMC54

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=en-7Zu1Yaqw Same

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqiiVI_qxas Duncan MagMic pickup into Zoom A2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXReoi5cD1g Same

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCSgxtvjr5g Sony PCM-D50

and so on and so on.

I use the tool that I think is most appropriate for the job. Sometimes I experiment. Sometimes I'm traveling and only have limited gear. But regardless, I record stuff and share it. So when I talk about gear people can refer to my published material and get an idea if my opinions have merit. Otherwise it's just talk.

Fran

Interesting and I have to say that even on my lap top and even though it's You Tube sound
There is a distinct difference in the sounds on those clips and honestly the I am glad I bought a Schoeps

[Steev]

Originally Posted by alohachris

Aloha Fran,
But considering the diminished, compressed quality of all shared online recordings, how much of a game-changer can they really be when it comes to making a final decision in choosing gear like a good pair of studio condenser mic's?

Doing your own LIVE audition on a microphone is the only way I have found to receive all the information I need to make fully informed choices. And I use this "Just Talk" here to encourage everyone to do that before you buy a new mic. Wisdom comes in all forms here, Uncle Kaliponi.

For example, about four years ago, Doug Young shared some audio links at an interesting GS thread comparing his Schoeps 641's , his new at the time VM-1Brauners & his AEA R-88 ribbon mic.

I listened to those links many times in my studio. However, when I actually auditioned those mic's in my studio out of curiousity, live & in simple recordings I made on them, each sounded very different than those online clips - qualitatively. I actually preferred the 641 SDC more than the VM-1 LDC. And the R-88 sounded really great in my live audition, but not so great in those online clips.
alohachris

I don't quite understand how the quality of an uncompressed digital file can be "diminished" and "compressed" by being stored and then accessed, but for sure it won't sound the same as it it did when or where it was recorded.

We've all heard the Zen riddle; "If a tree falls in the forest and there is no-one there to hear it, does it make a sound?"
Well, no it doesn't (regardless of whether it's mahogany or BRW). All that happens is that there is a slight change in the local air pressure. Brains are what turn these compressions and rarefactions of air molecules into sound, and once we insert a brain into any evaluative equation it all gets a bit tricky and subjective and personal anyhow.

If I made a recording using an identical microphone to that used in Doug's recording and it didn't sound very different I'd be worried about my hearing/brain. How many elements in those two recording events are the same? One - the microphone. Every other element in both the sonic events is totally unique.

Rick Altman in The Material Heterogeneity of Recorded Sound talks of a sound recordings 'spatial signature' - sound being a 3D moment in space and time - and depending on how and where it is recorded, and also played back plays a huge role in the interpretation and perceived fidelity. Even playing back a recording in the exact environment in which it was recorded "re-worldizes" a sound, to borrow from Walter Murch, as the acoustic properties of the room are now compounding and playing a part in the reproduction and imprinting on the (new) sound event.

If we really had golden ears (I don't) we'd even hear a distinct change between alternate takes due to microscopic position shifts, temperature and humidity changes etc… A good healthy young cochlea can detect very subtle changes from around 20Hz - 20kHz. Most of us can't "hear" anywhere near that top range any more. Many people over the age of 40 are lucky to hear much above 10kHz so they are losing a whole octave of HF information. The stereocillia in the cochlea are most sensitive around 4kHz and they are the ones that tend to be most easily damaged, consequently a lot of us have impairment at around that frequency too, but we're all different and generally our brains interpret and compensate for that also. Hearing isn't just an ear-brain thing anyhow as demonstrated famously by Geoff Emerick's ability to perceive +3db at 50kHz. His cochlea wasn't involved in that equation!

I find all this stuff fascinating and I really love playing around with recording equipment, expensive and cheap, but most of the time I'd really rather be playing guitar or listening to engaging and emotionally inspired musical performances. If a compelling performance is there it doesn't really matter about the finer details of the EQ curve and in most listening situations you can always move your chair or tilt your head a bit to make as much difference as changing between many microphones would have.

regards,
Steve

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by alohachris

A
Doing your own LIVE audition on a microphone is the only way I have found to receive all the information I need to make fully informed choices.

trying stuff yourself is always best, hearing what someone else was able to do is just a starting point. But I'd really love to understand this LIVE thing. Do you mean listening to the mic in analog, while you're playing? That's fraught with problems. Do you mean listening back to your recording? If so, there should be nothing lost in the medium, and nothing lost if you play back an uncompressed file I give you.

For example, about four years ago, Doug Young shared some audio links at an interesting GS thread comparing his Schoeps 641's , his new at the time VM-1Brauners & his AEA R-88 ribbon mic.

I listened to those links many times in my studio. However, when I actually auditioned those mic's in my studio out of curiousity, live & in simple recordings I made on them, each sounded very different than those online clips - qualitatively. I actually preferred the 641 SDC more than the VM-1 LDC. And the R-88 sounded really great in my live audition, but not so great in those online clips.

Well, I think you're making Fran's (and my) point here. First of all, those files weren't compressed - at least I've made them available as full wav files, so I don't think you can claim something was lost in the file transfer. But more importantly, what you seem to have discovered is that other things trump the gear, which is what I keep trying to point out. I take it you like the VM1s on my recording, but the MK41s on yours. Not at all surprising, since it was you playing, your guitar, your room, your mic placement, etc, etc. Everyone's experience will be different. Heck, I've gotten sounds I can't replicate if I just stand up and sit back down again without touching anything. So that's the real point here, you can't just say "the more dollars you spend, the better you will sound". Someone may get a killer sound in their studio, with them playing their guitar, recording to a Zoom H2, that we can't replicate with $100X the gear. That's just how music works. There's no price tag on capturing magic.

I do think what's most useful is to share information AND the results. I can say "I used this mic, placed like so, run thru this chain, and here's the sound I got". Does that mean you'll get that same sound?. No way. I may not even get the same sound tomorrow. But it's just a data point, and I think (hope) it's more helpful than telling people they must spend X amount of dollars or their sound will suck. It's far more complex (and in some ways far easier - or at least cheaper) than that.

I really wish all of us on this forum spent less time "talking" (aka "Dancing about architecture") and more time sharing music. A sound recording with some info about how it was made is 1000% more interesting and useful to me than all the assertions in the world about the right way to do things or what the right gear is.

Post your stuff, Chris, everyone on this forum knows how to do it, so you can do it too. Show us what you're talking about. Hopefully, we'll learn something, and I know I always learn something myself by sharing.

[Rick Shepherd]

Originally Posted by Steev

We've all heard the Zen riddle; "If a tree falls in the forest and there is no-one there to hear it, does it make a sound?"
Well, no it doesn't (regardless of whether it's mahogany or BRW). All that happens is that there is a slight change in the local air pressure. Brains are what turn these compressions and rarefactions of air molecules into sound, and once we insert a brain into any evaluative equation it all gets a bit tricky and subjective and personal anyhow.
Steve

Grasshopper, it is called a Koan, not a riddle. It is simply a paradox to meditate upon. Now go and sweep the floor. I like what you quoted about "real-worldizes".

[Steev]

Originally Posted by Rick Shepherd

Grasshopper, it is called a Koan, not a riddle. It is simply a paradox to meditate upon. Now go and sweep the floor. I like what you quoted about "real-worldizes".

Thank you Sensei...

Aaah, now I've forgotten...do I have to boil water first or chop wood?

[Fran Guidry]

Originally Posted by alohachris

...
But considering the diminished, compressed quality of all shared online recordings, how much of a game-changer can they really be when it comes to making a final decision in choosing gear like a good pair of studio condenser mic's?
...

When I post comparative clips I always post uncompressed WAV files.

Fran