Search results

Wow, I think the OM5 is a great live-vocal mic and choose it over the SM58 in a heartbeat. Different strokes...

Sigh... 2 8-ohm in parallel -> 4 ohms 2 8-ohm in series -> 16 ohms

And the M88 is my first choice for miking bass drum. I would think that an SM7 could do that fairly well but have not heard of anyone using it for that.

I have a NT5 pair and a pair of MK012s with all the capsules. I think they're both decent pairs. To my ear, the NT5 are a little brighter-sounding. The real selling point for the MK012, aside from price, is the multi-capsule option.

Yes, stereo recording is not well suited to moving sources! I once recorded my choir in a concert with a Blumlein configuration, and there was one piece where I played guitar and sang solo. I was playing to the audience, so I turned from side to side as I sang. Ruined the recording.

Same technique as you would use for any other woodwind will work for bassoon. There isn't enough wind coming out from anywhere on any wind instrument to blow a diaphragm, or a ribbon for that matter.

I'm digging my new MSH-1O omni on bass speaker. A bass-drum mic like the D112 would be one of my last choices for bass cab, unless I wanted a very tubby sound...just my opinion.

It's probably fused from salt-induced corrosion.

Yes. Any recording which does NOT pick up these noises isn't a good recording. Fix the piano or live with it.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to SouthSIDE Glen again.

You're not understanding me. All I'm saying is that in certain architectures, the most significant bits will be on the left, while in others they will be on the right. It's not important that we know where they are, but that, as you say, the least significant ones are lost.

I like the Fender Bassman 60. Not a loud amp, but nice sound, and the features you desire. And it tilts back.

I'll be dogged. It would seem that lossy compression creates noise that was not there in the original program. This article seems to be referring to algorithms used to convert, for example, WAV to MP3; does it also apply to changes in bit depth when no other conversion is occurring? I dunno...

It really doesn't matter logically which end they're discarded from. Big-endian and little-endian and all that.

It sounds counterintuitive that a bidirectional mic would pick up less of the room, but it's true. Look at the polar-pattern diagrams. On the subject of "cleaner bleed," the thing that no one's brought up is the off-axis response of whatever mic you use. If it's poor, you get "bad bleed."

Bingo. Actually, it was the first condensor mic I ever bought. It's not bad at all for live, non-rock-and-roll use IF feedback is not a issue.

I'll take your word for it!

I'm using "masking" as a mathematical/programming term. Each bit (Binary Digit) is 1 or 0. If I have an 8-bit value, say: 10101010 and perform an AND operation with 00001111 I am MASKING the first four bits, resulting in 00001010. This is how sample depth - or, as you call it, "bit depth"...

There's a lot of information in this thread but I think some of it is not quite right. As I trust we all know, digital audio is a stream of samples taken at set intervals. The sample depth - we're talking here about 16 bits and 24 bits - refers to how much information each sample contains...

A variation on Glen's #1: You may actually get more isolation and less bleed using a figure-of-eight-patterned microphone and taking advantage of its superior rejection in its nulls. A bidirectional mic results in less room sound than a cardioid.