Stephen Paul's tunes

[Recording Engineer]

The way they do it is they have a large archive of spare parts, but they've run out of those KM5x capsules, which were not the sturdiest they've done, nickel being more prone to oxidization than gold.

Well, agreed, nickel is NOT the most ideal... Although we're talking aluminum for the KM-53... But either of that is beside the point.

You mentioned Neumann and nickel diaphragms even when Neumann is STILL working with a nickel diaphragm in the TLM50!

So again, what were you saying about Neumann and nickel diaphragms?

What you said about that I still say it's bullshit.

Neumann doesn't have a custom shop to rebuilt their old capsules, it wouldn't be cost effective, I suppose. For a custom shop like Stephen Paul's things are different. His capsules are for the most part handmade anyway. And again, I don't think you could build Stephen's sub 1 micron capsules in a factory like Neumann's, at least not cost effectively. Neumann, too, have to cut back on the cost and they have to come up with microphones that are marketable. A 16.000 $ microphone has a very small market segment, not big enough for a mid size manufacturer like Neumann.

Well, it's only been for the past 20 years that Neumann hasn't released anything that had new, cutting-edge technology in it that they themselves actually designed... So no major R&D costs like they use to have... And cost effective? Most would rather see Neumann AND AKG go back to designing and releasing "real" microphones again (if they do indeed still have the knowledge)! We have enough cost effective turds in high quantities out there; even from Neumann and AKG alone! But, I guess those days are long gone! We can damn near lump them in with the rest of them!Give it a few more years and we will!!!

But let me just ask you one question: who of you owns or has at least used a Stephen Paul modded mic and compared it to a regular Neumann?

My use of SPA mics is limited to various 3 microns; the closest one being a 3 micron U87 right here at a studio in Sacramento. And I would be in the "own" catagory, but SPA has had my mic for the past three years. And within the next year, I will be sending them a pair to work-on; for sure.

Rossi,

I appreciate you chimming in. And I hear you with all that you're saying, I simply do not agree. There really are no emotions here. Really. Just your one statement about Neumann and nickel diaphragms is flat out wrong, so I had to yell out that it's "bullshit", and showed you why.

 

[MrZekeMan]

Rossi,

No offense intended, but it seems like there is a trend developing here. When you Stephen Paul detractors don't like the response to your arguments, you make two claims noted below:

I guess you guys shouldn't be so emotional about the subject.

Which statements directed toward you did you interpret as emotional responses? I'm truly curious. To me, it's just discussion.

None of my statements were emotionally charged, and I didn't interpret any one elses statements toward you as such.

The second claim:

I won't go through the rest of your replies, as I don't think any of you would read my response as a piece of information but as an attempt to put down your hero.

You think we interpret your comments as a put-down upon a long, crusty, luncheon meat & cheese sandwich?

Just kidding. . .

My view of a hero, is someone noted for valor, courage, bravery, and intestinal fortitude, someone willing to sacrifice their life for a cause. How does a discussion about a man's creativity and mastery in the field of microphone technology equate to that? It's a silly argument, IMO.

I won't go through the rest of your replies, as I don't think any of you would read my response as a piece of information. . .

I think your replies are read as pieces of information. It's read as pieces of information that we do not agree with, and we address the points that we don't agree with. Why can't you just address the counterpoints, instead of throwing out "emotionalism" and "hero worship" accusations?

Taylor

 

[Recording Engineer]

your GUT feeling? when did knowledge become a matter of gut feelings.

Wha? Aaa... My gut feeling is based on knowlege. I DON'T know if it is "fact"... So I said THAT because MOST of my "knowledge" on the issue points to it being "false"! Hell, Neumann's current mics ALONE is ENOUGH "knowledge" to justify a "gut feeling" response to me!!!

RE, you seem to have a lot of gut feelings that get mixed up with facts.

Um... This is the ONLY time I've mentioned "gut feeling"... Everything else should be considered as much "fact" as anything else on this BBS; which isn't saying much! But as I HAVE mention before: I'm sure it's not perfectly accurate... But I know it's pretty damn close!

By the way, I thought Zeke and I debunked (or at least gave some pretty damn good reasoning why we disagree) a lot (most?) of Rossi's points. And I say that respectively. I'm serious.

 

[MrZekeMan]

The thing about this thread: Would any of you listen to Stephen Paul's music if he were not the big mic guru?

I admit that while I like some of his stuff that I wouldn't have ever given his music a second listen if he wasn't THE genius of mic mods and mic innovation. To be fair, there a lots of popular recording artists to whom I won't give a second listen.

Steve
www.piemusic.com

There are lots of popular recording artists to whom I won't give a second listen as well. Some of these are certainly recognized as being singers or musicians that are as accomplished and talented at what they do, as Stephen Paul is at building and modding microphones. They just don't appeal to me.

I think the argument you put forth here is the most disconcerting thing about this whole discussion, Steve.

Geeeeez, what's wrong with someone liking the guys music? I find it rather condescending for someone to tell me that I don't really like the music, that I'm just star struck.

I find it even more bizarre that anyone would try to discredit the man's formidable success and talent in his craft, just to discredit someone's appreciation for his art.

Never in my wildest dreams did I think this thread would go where it's gone when I posted a link to some of his mp3's. I regret ever having posted it.

I never expected everyone to like his music. Heck, some people don't like anything that's not heavy metal. Some people don't like anything that's not jazz. Some people don't like anything that's not country, rap, new age, or alternative etc. etc.

I'm fairly broad minded in my musical taste. I like Ozzy. I like Rush. I like Fleetwood Mac. I like The Eagles. I like Coldplay. I like the Dixie Chicks. I like Lester Flatt and Earl Scruggs.

. . . And yes, I like Stephen Paul. After I get off the Crazy Train, his music picks me up and "takes me flying". You guys are free to believe it's oozing with sappiness and sentimentality. I don't see it that way. But what if it is? It appeals to me. Why should someone get their britches in stitches over that?

Geeeeeez Louise, can you at least give me the leeway to enjoy his artistry without insinuating that it's because of some unwholesome ardor I have for the man, or because of some groupie mentality about his work?

Taylor

 

[MrZekeMan]

You put forth some extremely good and well articulated points , rossi.

Jag,

That's a pretty broad and inclusive endorsement. Were there any particular statements you found "extremely good"? Were there any particular disagreeing statements that were made in reply to his post that you would like to address?

Taylor

 

[MrZekeMan]

We have enough cost effective turds in high quantities out there; even from Neumann and AKG alone!

Yea, just take a listen to the C3000B.

Shame on you AKG.

Taylor

 

[Rossi]

RE, you may be right on the nickel/aluminum/whatever thing. As I said, I don't claim to be a Neumann expert. My point, however, is that they just don't reproduce any of their old parts. They use original parts for as long as the have them. And, knowing how anal German manufacurers usually are about documenting their products and production methods, I can assure you that their older technology is not lost. It's just that they need products that are reliable and competitive in today's market.

About the the emotionality in this thread: first of all I don't get called "Rossi-bert" any day. Second, it's rare that people take apart my posts and answer every statement I make. Third, when you go back and analyse the various replies, you'll find that some of my statements were intentionally misconstrued. I mean, when someone takes a phrase like "change the course of the universe" literally, that's kind of silly, isn't it?

All I wanted to say is: Stephen Paul knows a lot about microphones, no discussion here. But to see him as the giant upon whose sholders everybody else stands is IMHO out of proportion. Other poeple invented and developed the technology, and he took it a step or two further. And to come back to the original topic of this thread: I'm not really impressed by his own recordings, neither from a songwriting point of view nor with respects their sonic qualities. I don't think his philosophy about a good recording as it was quoted by someone in this thread applies to his own recordings. I can't see a holographic image of the singer. I think the vocals have too much top end. I hope that's not how his mics sound. And again: that's not to put SP down, it's just my opinion, not a personal insult.

BTW: Neumann and others are still contributing to the advancement of microphone technology. See for instance, Neumann's and other's digital microphones. In many respects the microphone industry is no different than the car industry. If a company doesn't service their old gems anymore, that doesn't mean the guy who can knows more about cars than the big manufacturers do. And if they don't produce those beautiful cars like in the fifties and sixties anymore, that doesn't mean they can't. It's just that times have changed, and that the majority of customers for various reasons wouldn't buy their expensive reproductions but go for a more modern design. This analogy may not be perfect, but I think it is a helpful one in understanding todays microphone industry. Don't forget it's an industry.

 

[MrZekeMan]

About the the emotionality in this thread: first of all I don't get called "Rossi-bert" any day.

Let me apologize for that. I didn't mean it in a derisive way at all. I was just making reference to your avatar.

I didn't think of that fact that you might not know who the guy with the little upturned pointy tie is. It's a comic strip here in the states, and the character's name is Dilbert. There are several characters in the strip called dog-bert, cat-bert, and rat-bert etc.

Second, it's rare that people take apart my posts and answer every statement I make.

I just do that so I can break down the points and address them one at a time. It keeps me from getting confused.

Third, when you go back and analyse the various replies, you'll find that some of my statements were intentionally misconstrued. I mean, when someone takes a phrase like "change the course of the universe" literally, that's kind of silly, isn't it?

I didn't take it literally. I took it as an exaggeration to make a point. I played along, to try and make the point that we weren't taking it as seriously as you were insinuating. I didn't mean to offend.

I'm not really impressed by his own recordings, neither from a songwriting point of view nor with respects their sonic qualities.

That's cool. I can allow you that.

I do disagree with you. I wish people could extend to me the same allowances. Especially do I wish they could make me the allowance without attacking the man's successes, or making bizarre spam accusations.

Taylor

 

[chessrock]

Look, Taylor.

What the fuck is wrong with admitting that you are emotionally involved in this?

You've been defending your position so staunchly and adamently . . . you've been taking on anyone with an opinion other than your own . . . you've been putting an extraordinary amount of time, effort, creativity, etc. in to your responses. You've been defensive, quick to provoke -- and just as quick to insult.

That, to me, is a slight indication that you might care about this topic more than the average joe. Look, it's obvious to a duck that you're emotionally involved with this subject. Admit it, and get on with life. Otherwise, what the hell are you still doing even bothering with this thread if it's just a passing fancy to you?

Don't you have other things that you are emotionally attached to that are more deserving of your time and energy?

 

[jimistone]

going back to what originally started all of this.....

chessrock what kind of spamming were you talking about ? (the spam patrol comment)
and what statements have been made about Stephen Paul that you don't agree with?

 

[MrZekeMan]

Look, Taylor.

What the **** is wrong with admitting that you are emotionally involved in this?

You're the one that sounds a little emotional, but allow me, and I will try to spell it out for you. There's two reason's

1) This whole discussion is nominally important to me. I'm not saying that I am completely emotionally detached from it. We are all emotional creatures, and emotions are pretty much involved in all we do. Why, even disinterest is an emotional response.

2) You and others use the terms "emotionally involved", as a cop-out. Every time points are mentioned that you don't feel capable of responding to, you come back with your spiel. You stand on your soapbox, and start yelling: "you're emotionally involved", and, "you're just upset because he's your hero".

I have to give it to you though, you are the master at diversion. The post you made alluding to my man-love for Stephen Paul was the apex of your issue reflecting activity.

Admit it, and get on with life. Otherwise, what the hell are you still doing even bothering with this thread if it's just a passing fancy to you?

What are you still doing here? Are you emotionally involved?

I'm still here because I'm having fun exposing your continued flawed reasoning. I get a kick out of it. I only get 3 channels on TV, and the 70's show rerun tonight is one I've already seen, so why not spend the time spanking you some more?

Don't you have other things that you are emotionally attached to that are more deserving of your time and energy?

Yup, but I've never been accused of using my time wisely.

Zeke

 

[DJL]

This was kind of a fun soap, I mean thread to read. I'm going to get some more popcorn.

 

[CyanJaguar]

Yea, just take a listen to the C3000B.

Shame on you AKG.

Taylor

I am not going to come in and praise the c3000b but I am willing to bet that you are one of those who thinks that the SP c1 is the s^%$tuff, and since you do, I am not going to tell you how the C1 sounds compared to the c3000b which you so happily berate.

 

[littledog]

Well, Cyan, I've never heard a C1, but are you saying that it in your opinion it actually sounds worse than a C3000??? It seems hard to believe that they've managed to sell as many as they have if that was really the case. Plus, the mic does seem to have quite a few fans on this forum, which may not be a true mark of greatness, but how many people have you seen proclaiming the wonderfulness of the C3000?

Must be something in the water. Chessrock, Rossi, etc. belittle Stephen Paul's accomplishments, Cyan says the C3000 is a superior mic to the C1, and Zallen... I don't even want to go there.

Hell, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em...

Let's see.... aha! I've got it!

Ladies and Gentlemen, I am proud to announce my new crusade. I will now devote my all my time to annoyingly insisting ad infinitum that the Oktava 219 is a far superior piece of gear to the Neumann U87.

If I have no facts to back up my argument, that's fine, because I will simply admit that "i'm no expert", which therefore excuses whatever opinion I post. If anyone cares to take issue with my statement, I will simply accuse them of being "emotionally invested". Or being "haters". See, who says an old dog can't learn new tricks. Thanks for showing me how it's done folks!

 

[ozraves]

i think i must have one of the few good mk219 mics ever made.

the c1 gets the wrong kind of hype which i think leads to a few people getting turned off to it entirely. it's a good mic nonetheless in my opinion that performs the best of anything in its price class as a vocal condenser.

 

[CyanJaguar]

littledog,

you dont see many professionals swearing by the C1.

THe reason I as a homereccer was excited about it is because there was an EXCELLENT, I mean, Fabulous marketing campaign associated with it.

I dont have the chance to test out mics, so to take a $250 gamble on a mic which pros proclaimed as virtually identical to a u87 seemed a no-lose situation. I am sure many other homereccers felt the same way.

 

[littledog]

Hey, Cyan!

I've got no particular stock in the C1 one way or another. Never saw one, never used one...

But I was just surprised to see that you considered it a notch below the C3000 - which I have seen and used. While not totally impossible, it still seems to me unlikely that the C1 could be worse than the C3000 and still succeed in being such a popular mic, regardless of how much hype surrounded it.

I mean, surely Chessrock at least would be slamming it, since he usually relishes any possible excuse to annoy Alan Hyatt.

Remember, if you disagree with me, I will be forced to accuse you of being "emotionally invested"...

 

[Recording Engineer]

As I said, I don't claim to be a Neumann expert.

It should be noted that I am not an expert what-so-ever either...

My point, however, is that they just don't reproduce any of their old parts. They use original parts for as long as the have them.

OK. Gotcha. Don't disagree there. I simply wanted to let anyone reading or anyone who reads this when this is "archive", that the broad Neumannn and nickel diaphragm comment is outright false; at least in this point of time.

And, knowing how anal German manufacurers usually are about documenting their products and production methods, I can assure you that their older technology is not lost. It's just that they need products that are reliable and competitive in today's market.

Oh I don't doubt they still have all the documentation. I never did. In fact, I bet you're right! Though I do not know.

I'm saying they are currently incapable and thus far, I've yet to see any type of light in that changing! As for them still having the "knowledge", that still remains up in the air for me.

Second, it's rare that people take apart my posts and answer every statement I make. Third, when you go back and analyse the various replies, you'll find that some of my statements were intentionally misconstrued. I mean, when someone takes a phrase like "change the course of the universe" literally, that's kind of silly, isn't it?

What Zeke said again.

And if it's me you're accusing of intentionally misconstructing your statements, then you've got it AND me ALL WRONG!

When I used your phrase "change the course of the universe", I was simply using it to prove MY ENTIRE, OVERALL point in all this! Stephen Paul HAS revolutionized this industry!!! Yep, a BIG statement with countless microphones all over the GLOBE to back it up!!!

Other poeple invented and developed the technology, and he took it a step or two further.

Please see my previous comment to this.

BTW: Neumann and others are still contributing to the advancement of microphone technology. See for instance, Neumann's and other's digital microphones.

Um... We're still talking about transducers here... I mean, they're still using the traditional capsule and diaphragm, right?

 

[Rossi]

Just a few quick replies:

littledog, I don't think I'm belitteling Stephen Paul's accomplishments. I just wanted to put them into perspective. I never questioned Stephen Paul's expertise.

RE, I still don't see how Stephen Paul has "revolutionized" the industry. Revolutionize, in the literal sense, means to turn a thing on its head. Metaphorically speakting it means a *huge* change, something that alters the very premises upon which everyone else operated up to that point. In how far is that true for Stephen Paul?

Also, I don't think there are "countless" microphones all over the globe to back up your assessment. The number of SPA modded mics is probably *very* countable. If you asked him, he might be able to give you an exact number. The point being: if there had never been a Stephen Paul (which would be sad) people wouldn't have stopped recording. In fact, today's recordings would pretty much sound the same as they do now. Lots of excellent recordings were made without a Stephen Paul mic. I also know that George Massenburg, who owns a number of SPA mics, made great recordings without using them, although they obviously were at his disposal. Only few recordings were made without an (unmodded) Neumann. And again: that's not to put down Stephen Paul's accomplishments, it's just to put them into perspective. He's not the giant upon whose shoulder everyone else stands. He's a very knowledgeable microphone maniac.

 

[MrZekeMan]

I am not going to come in and praise the c3000b but I am willing to bet that you are one of those who thinks that the SP c1 is the s^%$tuff, and since you do, I am not going to tell you how the C1 sounds compared to the c3000b which you so happily berate.

Hey Jag,

I'm running out the door, but I wanted to make a couple of comments.

I own both the C3000B and the C-1. IMO, the AKG is the worst sounding mic I have. I like the way the C-1 sounds.

A recent mic shootout that Harvey and Alex Gerst did yielded the worst marks on the C3000B I can ever remember Harvey giving a mic. If you think the AKG sound's better than the SP mic, I would like to hear your thoughts on that.

I don't mean that smart alecky. I realize it might be the right mic for someone's voice.

Plus, if you are needing a stereo pair, I can hook you up with one that is barely used.

Taylor