I'm glad I posted my little review of the "Sessions" CD from Studio Projects in a separate thread before reading this interesting and informative thread -- it might otherwise have influenced my listening.
Imagine and Tubedude make interesting points that appear to contradict each other, yet I have heard the truth of what each is saying as I've upgraded my playback system over the past 15 years.
With an $1000 system consisting of an NAD receiver, an early CD player, and a pair of decent but rather polite-sounding Polk 5 speakers augmented with a passive subwoofer, and some modest Kimber cable connections (all this in the mid-80s), some mixes sounded terrific and musical and engaging that I would later have to abandon as second-rate when my system improved. At the time, the Infinity speakers I auditioned sounded like nails on a chalkboard, while the KEFs sounded like they were being played through 20 wool blankets. The Boston Acoustics were embarrassingly bad, and never mind the boomy junk they were selling at Sears with 18 inch woofers and brassy tweeters in boxes the size of small refrigerators.
At the same time, Tubedude's "familiarity" with the deficiencies of the the system he was listening to is just the sort of psychoacoustic adjustments I've discussed elsewhere in suggesting to an opera singer on this forum that he *not* try to provide a *finished* or *polished* audition CD, which would only confuse and put off a director who is used to listening to home-made tapes and can determine a singer's capability more easily with a common cassette track that isn't processed at all. A trained ear intuitively and instantly recognizes and adjusts for the limitations of the medium.
Remember that otherwise intelligent people (and professional musicians) publicly proclaimed that early wax Edison recordings were "indistinguishable" from a live performance. They weren't stupid or deaf -- they just had never heard the level of fidelity that we take for granted. I fully believe that 24/96 or 24/192, once it becomes available as a consumer-level playback medium, will make our current 16/44 CDs sound as outdated and quaint as Edison recordings seem to us today.
On the other hand, Imagine is right in that it takes a very revealing system to articulate subtle differences in recorded sound, and that much of that information is simply lost on a limited ("crappy") playback system. He's right to ask, "How would you know?" or "What's that about?" It's just two different truths. A 3 carat diamond ring looks pretty good from 3 feet away, whether it cost $2500 at a pawn shop or $250,000 at Tiffanys. Put it under a gem scope, however, and suddenly the grading differences become obvious. So it is with sound recordings and playback systems.
The most useful thing I learned from listening to the Sessions CD (second to the fact that I adore the T-3 and think the C-3 is also a fabulous bargain) is how an extremely dry vocal, such as that made with the C-1 in a sound booth, sounds great when it's blended into a mix.
I never before understood what singers liked about the U87, which sounds neither realistic nor warm to my ears. The C-1, though different from the U87, has a *similar* quality that effectively allows the vocal to be laid down in way that makes it optimally useful in a rich mix -- it gives great control over the finished product to the singer who works closely with the engineer.
Would I want to hear a great singer do delicate a capella work recorded with either a C-1 or a U87? No. It would sound artificial to my ears. For that type of recording -- akin, I suppose, to acoustic guitar in some ways -- I would want the T-3,
the AT4060,
the KSM44 or the older Neumanns, especially
the U67, if I could afford it. I'd want multi-pattern capability if I could have it (as with the T-3, for instance) to open up the sense of space around the singer that it possible with a figure 8 pattern. I'd want delicacy and realism. I'd want to record it simultaneously with a pair of omnis, perhaps the Earthworks QTC-1s placed a bit farther away, to blend into the mix to achieve even more "you are there" realism.
But mics like the U87 and C414 are successful for a reason, and the modest C-1 is right up there with them, as the Sessions CD and Imagine's MP3 clip demonstrate very well. It's a tool, and a good one, and a stone bargain at $229. The Sessions CD is great for showing how "scary" a dry vocal really is, especially with a mic like the C-1. Yet in the mix, it sounds terrific.
I prefered the C-3 and the T-3 in the mix, but for straightforward punch and intelligibility in a pop mix that's going to be heard mainly on car and portable stereos or at parties, the engineer and artist may (correctly) decide that the C-1 is going to communicate better within the listening context.
I quit drinking alcohol more than 20 years ago, and it took me a long time after doing so to learn to listen with the emotional parts of my brain again. My "clinical" listening is spot-on but not always deeply satisfying. Anyone listening "critically" to the Sessions CD on a good system is going to apprehend the price-related differences in quality among the C-1, the C-3 and the T-3 rather clearly (although the differences between the latter two are more subtle). However, "better" is not always "better," if you know what I mean. My point is that I'd like to have a couple of C-1's on hand even though I have a strong preference for the C-3, because there will be times that the C-1 will be more effective, even though (or perhaps because) it offers less information than the C-3 and is less natural sounding. Likewise, the T-3 offers the ultimate in intimacy, but there are performers with whom I would prefer never to be that intimate.
Just my thoughts based on all your great observations...
With kind regards,
Mark H.
