Complexity

[hognogger]

Something that comes up on this forum all the time is that there is no one perfect mic. A mic has to be matched to the thing it is recording. Then there's issues of placement, etc., etc.

The funny thing is, that I know some people who work in specialised fields where, if you tried to ask them a simplistic question, they'd say, "Well, it depends..." These same people often have simplistic views about things outside their own area of expertise. So, they often have simplistic views about economics, international relations, ethics, etc. etc.

People and their interactions are a lot more complicated than (just for example) microphones and musical instruments, yet often, people who should know better assume that there are simple solutions to problems involving large masses of people and their interactions.

Sorry, I know this is a bit off-topic, so feel free to ignore...

 

[Track Rat]

Wrong forum but on the other hand, I believe you are correct in your observation. There is no panacea to cure the world or any part of it. Just specific solutions to specific problems.

 

[chessrock]

It's because things always look like they should be easy . . . until you actually throw yourself in and try to do it.

Pretty common phenomenon. Raising children? Easy stuff, right? A lot like having a dog. Air traffic control? Looks like easy stuff to me. Like playing a video game.

 

[DJL]

I'm not a good speller, nor am I good at saying what I mean in print... so many times if not most of the time I am misunderstood. By-the-way, Track Rat is right about this being the wrong forum for this subject... it's more suited for the CAVE IMO.

 

[mcolling]

this is a very post-modern observation. as a sociology major trained in post-modern theories of science i will weigh in (even tho this isn't the forum!).

if we take your observation about "well, it depends.." to the extreme, the subjectivity that is inherent in listening will lead us to determine that no mic is any "better" than any other, just different. maybe this is the case on some level. however, this muddled relativism is not representative of all of our experience that some mics are truly shitty, while others are good. from here, we should look at the problem pragmatically, and say, "well, clearly some mics are better than others for certain applications."

but how do we determine which mics these are? well, nearly everyone will agree that the U87 (not that i've ever used one) is a better vocal mic than a shitey radio shack deal. this is neither an objective nor subjective statement, but rather emerges out of consensus. this is called "intersubjectivity," and is a new concept in science that helps to deal with the epistemological problems with notions of objectivity and subjectivity.

basically: the world is a very complex place, and reality is impossible to pin down objectively, but (small- "t") truth emerges out of consensus.

haha.

michael collinge

 

[Harvey Gerst]

Michael,

The problem, in this particular case, is that the "consensus" may be skewed because of price differentials, rather than sound differences. How much exposure to a wide range of microphones have the people (who are expressing opinions) had? Limited exposure to a broad range of options often leads to an opinion which is also limited by that lack of exposure.

In the case of small diaphragm mics, differences will be subtle, such as noise, varying off-axis response, and high end peaks. Large diaphragm mics can vary even further due to the geometry and design involved. A particular usage may really honestly wind up as "it depends". But if someone's experience is only limited to that mic, or just a few mics, how much weight should their opinion be given?

Often, "It depends" is the only possible answer.