is it all hype?

[miroslav]

yeah, I wonder about that. I dont really buy it because you cant put back what isnt there can you?

With the Slate system...you really have to use the Slate mics with the Slate modeling in order to mimic other mics.

I've listened to demo samples...the real thing VS the Slate modeling...and again, in most cases it "comes close", maybe close enough for some music genres and mixes that you won't notice or care...
...but personally, I would rather capture the audio as-is, up front... rather than rely too much on modeling it into what it should be, what I want it to be.

YMMV...

 

[CoolCat]

that makes more sense.
if the LDC is the main mic then cutting freqs could be done.
listening to the 50 mic samples theres obviously differences, some are pretty small imo.
for HR and blind tests vs enjoying gear for the pure enjoyment (like owning a $8995 Telefunken maybe)...
I tend to like Shure because Im heavy handed and the metal grills and taking hard hits and loaning to the son(screaming punk/ska/raggea) they work well.

for Adele types maybe a Manley Gold...no eq needed. But the Rode stuff is even highly rated by Pro's like the SM7 too.

I wonder what these 50 mics would sound like through a Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 preamp/converter ?

 

[snow lizard]

I looked up my response from Matt Wallace and he used a Neve or Quad 8 preamp into a original black face 1176 and a MXL990 for the Billboard hit....so yeah that proves cheap can work fine.(but thats not a cheap channel strip?)

maybe the really nice channel strip helped the $49 mic too? or did it make it sound worse to some?

Once you have a great performance captured it really makes the mic choice sort of a done deal. It's funny how the better performance usually wins over a lesser performance with better sonics. It's often said that placement is more important than selection. All of our gear is really just a collection of tools. They all work, but how hard will they make us work?

I bought a pair of MXL 2001's many years ago. I've used them for various demo things. Used them on drums a lot. I have a few other mics to compare them with if I feel like. It took some time to figure out but it seems like the midrange is thin and the presence is sort of sizzly compared to many others. I ran through a few mics on cello and the MXL mics really surprised me. I thought they sounded great on that source. On my voice, not so much. I guess it's hard to rule anything out until you try it.

It kind of echoes things that people like Harvey and others have said. Any microphone is likely to have a source that it will shine on. The trick is finding it.

It's something you can't really get from listening to the shootouts. I appreciate the effort people put in to these things. It's interesting and can provide subtle pointers but once you have the gear in your hand and use it for 6 months or so it gives a better perspective.

I wonder what keys jangling through 50 different microphones would sound like?

 

[42low]

Well, we got VST from IK to Slate to make a 57 sound like something else : )

yeah, I wonder about that. I dont really buy it because you cant put back what isnt there can you?

Thats why in reaction #2 already i said:

A good and wide freq mic over EQ does most off job too.

... and/or some other good plugins.

And i also go with you that if it ain't there you can't get it back.
But why then if it's there some delete it? By using very wide freq quality mics, but cut that freq range and depth down to 16bit and 44.1khz?
What i already said in #2.

Said it in another topic already.
Reading about people homerecording who can choose between several $1500 mics, plugged in to thousands of dollars of gear. And then they produce there projects in 16bits and 44.1khz, using 16bit/44.1khz im- and exports.
I still don't get it at all.

So IMO you have to use the mic that fits within you project, with your gear, and your goal. And for some a $50 dollar (second hand) mic is more than good enough, were others buy expensive mics which they don't use in full. Like always driving a ferrari at 30mph max and problems with parking.
There are more good wide freq mics than the $1500 ones. Better to learn how to edit and master.

 

[radi0j0hn]

I do voice recording...radio shows, audio books, etc. I do not record music.

I have classic ElectroVoice studio mics needing phantom power and also nice dynamic AKGs for handheld use. I also have Blue Yeti USB mic.

The trick is, aside from recording environments, your voice may sound better with one mic and not so good with another. If it sounds right, it is right.

Ditto with recorders. In have acrazy little $19 8 GB recorder that (with a good mic plugged in) sounds about the same as my much, much more expensive models.

I'm a little suspicious of the current crop of "boutique" mics popping up everywhere. Fun looking, but....

If I win the lottery, I'll try one of the pricey Neumanns. But for now I make $$$ with what I've got.

 

[Farview]

You can record anything with a mic that is capable of capturing the dynamics and frequency response of what you are trying to record.

But, the minute your attention shifts from getting a sound to getting a specific sound, you will need to use the equipment that sounds like that.

You can use anything that doesn't get in the way of what you are trying to do. Having different mics will let you chose the one that works best for that situation. It may be expensive or not.

 

[Bobbsy]

it back.
But why then if it's there some delete it? By using very wide freq quality mics, but cut that freq range and depth down to 16bit and 44.1khz?

16 bit gives a dynamic range of aroud 96dB and a sample rate of 44.1kHz gives an upper frequency of 22,050Hz. I'd be very surprised if you can hear anywhere near that high (and more surprised if you have reproduction equipment that can get up that high.

The raw numbers of frequency response are a small part of how a mic sounds and reacts to a particular voice. Since only calibrated measurement mics come close to a totally flat frequency response (and they sound like rubbish on most sound sources beyond white noise) it's things like response peaks in the vocal range or roll offs to stop things sounding too "woofy" that make the difference.

 

[42low]

16 bit gives a dynamic range of aroud 96dB and a sample rate of 44.1kHz gives an upper frequency of 22,050Hz. I'd be very surprised if you can hear anywhere near that high (and more surprised if you have reproduction equipment that can get up that high.

With this subject it isn't all about hearing the freq the mic/export has at start.
It's about what you do with it after that.

For instance reverb over a wider freq range will result in a deeper (clearer) sound.
This reverb can't go that deep and clear if used over a cut sound (which 16bit/44.1khz is). The reverb wil be cut too.
If you edit a cut sound you will get a cut result. If you cut (= edit) that double cut sound again it will become even worst. If your original is cut everything you do with it (editting) can only be cut more, sound can only become double cut.

And it's THAT difference what you DO hear. Deeper and clearer end result.

And my equipment indeed get's that high.
My pc is setup to grab straight 24bit/96khz (32bit float).
My daw handles 32bit float/96khz.
And my gear can handle unlimited freq (pro-brand analogue).
And when producing i keep all as high as possible because then i can always cut if i want, but as already said you can't reach or get back what isn't there if cut to 16/44.1 already from the beginning.
So yes i can go that high (although i have to honestly admit that i too miss some as i'm no professional and lack $1500 mics for instance).

 

[Bobbsy]

Your gear can handle unlimited frequencies? Wow! I'd like to hear that. Oh, hang on, I wouldn't be able to.

Seriously, i've worked with very top end analogue gear over the years before I retired and I never saw a single microphone, monitor speaker or recorder that didn't have published frequency response details--and these rarely went much--if at all--about 20k or below about 25Hz (and that's rare).

As for you description of 16/44.1 "cutting" your sound, you need to do some reading on both psycho-acoustics and how digital technology works.

 

[42low]

As for you description of 16/44.1 "cutting" your sound, you need to do some reading on both psycho-acoustics and how digital technology works.

I know how it works. Learned that at school, higher electro technical education.
I've learned about analogue sound curves and how digital OI curves try to immitate these with holes in it (=less quality).

16 bits? 24 bits? 32 bits float?
Don't you know analogue doesn't count in bits because it has no bits (and holes between)?
Don't you know that analoque is full range and therefore unlimited indeed? So yes, (real!) analogue is better than digital. Sorry.

If you're that pro (which i believe!) you can't say that 16/44.1 is high quality (which i call cut), and that edit less quality will give even worst result.
And you can't deny that working as high as possible is the best. That if you don't do that the possibility that you get a not that deep and clear end result is actual.

If you don't know that you could better do some reading on that subject yourself.

And yes, there's a level which is 'good enough'. But i personally keep all as high as possible trying to loose nothing. Not even one or two bits.

 

[42low]

And this, for once and for all.

Although i say that i myself aren't professional (not as profession) that doesn't mean i know nothing.

--- privacy information deleted because not relevant anymore ---

Were on this forum do i have to put my curriculum vitae to get taken more seriously than i am untill now? (and with me many others)
Although no pro, no ignorant newb either. I'm not going to act arrogant about this (i'm quit modest), but please don't treat me like some kind of ignorant person. It ain't funny anymore. If so, don't be mad if you get reactions or whine if end up on the ignore list.

 

[Bobbsy]

Two words for you: Nyquist Theorem.

44.1kHz sampling handles frequencies about those audible by any normal human being. Similarly, unlike a compressed format like MP3, you can process and add effects as much as you want without "cutting" the signal. (I'll put in the caveat that this doesn't apply if you're adding lots of A to D and D to A stages. Similarly, I also work in 32 bit Floating Point on my DAW but that's for the safety it provides in terms of clipping etc.)

Apologies if I seemed patronising but your statement that your "pro grade analogue gear can handle unlimited frequencies" was so patently incorrect and impossible that it demanded comment.

I don't want to get into a battle of the CVs but, until my retirement, I worked for more than 30 years in professional broadcasting in London and, if you do some Googling, you'll find my name on some academic papers published by Philips Research facility in Eindhoven from when I acted as a consultant to them.

 

[42low]

Two words for you: Nyquist Theorem.

44.1kHz sampling handles frequencies about those audible by any normal human being. Similarly, unlike a compressed format like MP3, you can process and add effects as much as you want without "cutting" the signal. (I'll put in the caveat that this doesn't apply if you're adding lots of A to D and D to A stages. Similarly, I also work in 32 bit Floating Point on my DAW but that's for the safety it provides in terms of clipping etc.)

So my advise to work as high as possible wasn't that wrong at all as i read.

Still i can refer to many discussions about the difference between (warm) analogue sound and (flat mechanical) digital.
But i think we better not start that here again.

You must admit i was correct saying the bits try to immitate the straight analogue signal, which they btw do very well (but still not fully).

And as it is not nu profession, i know what i'm talking about, but to me explaining in correct words is difficult sometimes

Apologies if I seemed patronising but your statement that your "pro grade analogue gear can handle unlimited frequencies" was so patently incorrect and impossible that it demanded comment.

No need too. I wasn't offended by you
With the CV joke i only want to attend on general communication on Thuis forum were regular people aren't taken serious. Can't we all communicate with respect? It could be better IMHO.

That CV joke wasn't personal adressed at you.

I don't want to get into a battle of the CVs but, until my retirement, I worked for more than 30 years in professional broadcasting in London and, if you do some Googling, you'll find my name on some academic papers published by Philips Research facility in Eindhoven from when I acted as a consultant to them.

I already said i believe you.
And you with your knowledge know i ain't talking total shit.

 

[Farview]

I know how it works. Learned that at school, higher electro technical education.
I've learned about analogue sound curves and how digital OI curves try to immitate these with holes in it (=less quality).

You were either taught the dumbed down 'stairstep' version of how digital works, which is great for illustration purposes, but misrepresents the reality of how the signal is rendered - or - you weren't understanding what they were telling you. There are no holes or steps in the signal coming out of the converters.

16 bits? 24 bits? 32 bits float?
Don't you know analogue doesn't count in bits because it has no bits (and holes between)?

No, but analog does have a limit to the dynamic range it can handle, which can not come close to the dynamic range of 24 bit.

Don't you know that analoque is full range and therefore unlimited indeed? So yes, (real!) analogue is better than digital. Sorry.

Umm, no. Just the fact that you have to filter out the bias frequency (anywhere between 40khz and 150khz, depending on the tape and the machine) would really stop it from being unlimited. Even if it was, you would still low pass the signal in an attempt to keep RF out of the signal path. But that's OK, since you would be hard pressed to find a source that has any meaningful information above 20khz, or a microphone to capture it, or a playback system to reproduce it.

If you're that pro (which i believe!) you can't say that 16/44.1 is high quality (which i call cut), and that edit less quality will give even worst result.
And you can't deny that working as high as possible is the best. That if you don't do that the possibility that you get a not that deep and clear end result is actual.

I don't want to speak for Bobbsy, but there have been a few white papers discussing how recording at super high sample rates will actually be worse because of higher clocking anomalies.
It's also pointless, since the only thing you gain from higher sample rates is the ability to record higher audio frequencies.

Even if you believe that some people can hear over 20khz, no one claims to be able to hear anything over 30khz, so why attempt to record stuff up towards 96khz?

Is there any sound up there to record? Is your microphone capable of picking it up?

Will your mic preamp pass signal that high?

Do you have a playback system capable of reproducing it?

'Keeping all as high as possible, trying not to lose anything' is superstitious nonsense born out of a misunderstanding of how digital works, and the limitations of analog.

 

[Farview]

I think it might be time to trot this back out again...

D/A and A/D | Digital Show and Tell (Monty Montgomery @ xiph.org) - YouTube

 

[CoolCat]

Once you have a great performance captured it really makes the mic choice sort of a done deal. It's funny how the better performance usually wins over a lesser performance with better sonics. It's often said that placement is more important than selection. All of our gear is really just a collection of tools. They all work, but how hard will they make us work?

I bought a pair of MXL 2001's many years ago. I've used them for various demo things. Used them on drums a lot. I have a few other mics to compare them with if I feel like. It took some time to figure out but it seems like the midrange is thin and the presence is sort of sizzly compared to many others. I ran through a few mics on cello and the MXL mics really surprised me. I thought they sounded great on that source. On my voice, not so much. I guess it's hard to rule anything out until you try it.

It kind of echoes things that people like Harvey and others have said. Any microphone is likely to have a source that it will shine on. The trick is finding it.

It's something you can't really get from listening to the shootouts. I appreciate the effort people put in to these things. It's interesting and can provide subtle pointers but once you have the gear in your hand and use it for 6 months or so it gives a better perspective.

I wonder what keys jangling through 50 different microphones would sound like?

if moneys no object, i wonder how many sources the Telefunken 47 or 251 doesnt work on...its hard to imagine it sounds bad on anything.

keys jangling would be another test... 24/96 or 16/44.1?

as for the poll it seems more people than I guessed found the $49 C1 not as amazing.
i couldnt find any samples that were horrific, actually all sounded pretty good and the differences pretty small except for the prices. those are retail, used many are 50% off.

the channel strip is $5000 Millenia preamp and Avid converter $2000...probably doesnt hurt.

details test>
All mics were recorded using the incredibly clear and transparent Millennia HV-3R mic preamp.
We recorded through the industry-standard Avid HD interface set to 24-bit/96kHz with an Antelope Trinity master clock.

 

[42low]

@Coolcat
I even have a $10 mic and i love it. Hardly never ever use it but it's horrible narrow frequency sound is so fun for projects off which i want the vocals to sound 'oldies' that it's a keeper.

You were either taught the dumbed down 'stairstep' version of how digital works, which is great for illustration purposes, but misrepresents the reality of how the signal is rendered - or - you weren't understanding what they were telling you. There are no holes or steps in the signal coming out of the converters.

Now your talking like the 'stairstep' is no more than a fairy? That it ain't part of the explanation? That before a analoque imitating curve comes out those 'staisteps' aren't there?
Yeah i do know that it is more than a O or I (which most people think). That the hight of those steps are determined by a combination of O's and I's, and so on... to eventually immitate a full range analogue curve.
I know. Do you? Now it's your turn to prove your credibility like i'm pushed to all the time.

Not gonna defend myself anymore on this one. If i'm wrong with it go complain at the school and the (professional) teachers i've learned it from that the've teached me wrong.

Umm, no. Just the fact that you have to filter out the bias frequency (anywhere between 40khz and 150khz, depending on the tape and the machine) would really stop it from being unlimited. Even if it was, you would still low pass the signal in an attempt to keep RF out of the signal path. But that's OK, since you would be hard pressed to find a source that has any meaningful information above 20khz, or a microphone to capture it, or a playback system to reproduce it.

Thats not what i said. I never ever said i wanted to record unhearable frequencies to be listened at later. I never said i or whoever can here those frequenties. So i don't understand why you keep coming back at this. Twisting words is so easy.
I talk about wide ranges to capture all that's there. Were it's about in this topic, and what i said many times now.
Why use a wide range mic, if one cut's down on his quality? That would be strange, but that's something i read all the time.
Are you stating that a cut off recording catches all tones and 'colors' a $1500 mic can give?

Come on man, don't act like i'm talking stoopid. Like the earlier example, many 100K car driving people can't drive or park, and that 100K car doesn't make them better.
And this is happening within homerecording all the time too. High quality gear, but recording al low rates.

Not gonna defend myself anymore on this one either.

Is there any sound up there to record? Is your microphone capable of picking it up?

Will your mic preamp pass signal that high?

Do you have a playback system capable of reproducing it?

'Keeping all as high as possible, trying not to lose anything' is superstitious nonsense born out of a misunderstanding of how digital works, and the limitations of analog.

And that's were we are back at the starting point about the mic question. Pffff finaly ontopic again.
This is what i already said from the beginning and what i said in short words too.

And as i read you know you state too that this conclusion is right (my advice and vision on this mic subject are right and not unreal).
Those yelling hard "only expecive gear is good and the rest is shit" are the ones wrong on this subject.

So IMO you have to use the mic that fits within you project, with your gear, and your goal. And for some a $50 dollar (second hand) mic is more than good enough, were others buy expensive mics which they don't use in full. Like always driving a ferrari at 30mph max and problems with parking.
There are more good wide freq mics than the $1500 ones. Better to learn how to edit and master.

So as that was ontopic clear allready more than once and in summary in #24, i don't understand why such a offtopic endless discussion about not said subjects has to be made?

Ow man, this enless discussing about things not said and offtopic is so exhausting. I think i can better shut up.

 

[42low]

I think it might be time to trot this back out again...

D/A and A/D | Digital Show and Tell (Monty Montgomery @ xiph.org) - YouTube

Did you look it yourself?
Why does he projects only single points on all the drawn signals he uses for his explanation?
Why doesn't he explain how the signal is build with sums of O's and I's.
He isn't complete and actual in his explaining. His drawings aren't right. He doesn't explain how the digital signal/curve is made.

Look further to find a good explanation about how a digital sound/signal starts existing.
Or perhaps Bobbsy can explain that? (as i trust on his knowledge).

And if no one can or will perhaps i'll give it a try. Although i'm not that good in explaining clear.

 

[garww]

if moneys no object, i wonder how many sources the Telefunken 47 or 251 doesnt work on...its hard to imagine it sounds bad on anything.

keys jangling would be another test... 24/96 or 16/44.1?

as for the poll it seems more people than I guessed found the $49 C1 not as amazing.
i couldnt find any samples that were horrific, actually all sounded pretty good and the differences pretty small except for the prices. those are retail, used many are 50% off.

the channel strip is $5000 Millenia preamp and Avid converter $2000...probably doesnt hurt.

details test>
All mics were recorded using the incredibly clear and transparent Millennia HV-3R mic preamp.
We recorded through the industry-standard Avid HD interface set to 24-bit/96kHz with an Antelope Trinity master clock.

Well, they are suggesting that the results are fairly meaningless unless you use the same gear

 

[Farview]

Now your talking like the 'stairstep' is no more than a fairy? That it ain't part of the explanation?
That before a analoque imitating curve comes out those 'staisteps' aren't there?

No, the stair steps don't exist. The points are not steps, they are vectors. They represent both the point and the space between the points.

Yeah i do know that it is more than a O or I (which most people think). That the hight of those steps are determined by a combination of O's and I's, and so on... to eventually immitate a full range analogue curve.

What comes out of the converter isn't imitating anything any more than the speaker is imitating the sound picked up by the mic, or for that matter the magnetic imprint on analog tape is imitating the sound of the instrument that was recorded.

Thats not what i said. I never ever said i wanted to record unhearable frequencies to be listened at later. I never said i or whoever can here those frequenties. So i don't understand why you keep coming back at this. Twisting words is so easy.

You said "Don't you know that analoque is full range and therefore unlimited indeed?" and in a different post "And my gear can handle unlimited freq (pro-brand analogue)." Unlimited frequency???!!! You did actually say those things.

I talk about wide ranges to capture all that's there. Were it's about in this topic, and what i said many times now.
Why use a wide range mic, if one cut's down on his quality? That would be strange, but that's something i read all the time.
Are you stating that a cut off recording catches all tones and 'colors' a $1500 mic can give?

What I'm saying is "44.1k doesn't cut off anything." I'm arguing that premise, not saying it's a good idea to run a really expensive mic into something that can't pass the signal properly.