David,

Your intended use for the mic is of the utmost importance.  If you are
recording a solo acoustic guitr, your mic choice may be different than
if you're putting it into a mix with other instruments.

Who is your audience?

What preamp are you using?

Let's see if we can help the guy.

David

On Nov 3, 6:33 pm, "matty b." <matthewba...@gmail.com> wrote:

Which is it - you can hear a difference or you can't?  You do know you
can turn off the annotations, right?

There's a flaw in your logic. You make it sound like you can upload a
file once and then an hour later upload a file using the same audio
and they'll sound profoundly different. If you consistently upload
better sounding audio using a codec YouTube gets along with, you're
going to get consistently better sounding YouTube video.

And what I was implying is that it doesn't matter if you hear the mics or
not if that's the only way you're going to hear them. All that tells you
is that
they're capable of converting sound into electricity.

And from your demo, I would have said that they're both usable for
making a YouTube video. If that's all I wanted to do, I could buy either
one, or probably any one of a dozen others, and it would be satisfactory.
But if I wanted to make a CD for sale, and was going to take some care
with the recording, treat my room, get decent monitors, and work on
getting a really good sound that people could hear was good if they
listened to at least a CD-resolution recording on good playback equipment,
then I probably would reject both of your sample mics. But I couldn't do
that by listening to your YouTube video.

 > The point wasn't to get hung

So then, what do you do after YouTube? You hear a dozen mics, you
can't really rule any of them out because YouTube AND THE USUAL
PLAYBACK SYSTEM is worse than any of the mics.

Prove it to me. I acknowledged that I could hear a difference between
the two mics on your demo, but I couldn't say that I'd choose one over
the other, even for making a YouTube video.

I understand that. So I tell them to buy this or that and if they do,
they'll
have something that they can work with. No need for them to try to
decide for themselves. They don't know enough to do that yet. But that's
me (or maybe Scott, or Hank, or Paul or a few others who have been
around this for years) giving the advice. If the advice comes from someone
who only listens to playbacks on his computer, I don't consider that to be
particularly valid.

 > I believe the quality of

I agree. So why saddle him with making a choice based on a demonstration
that hides the best and worst characteristics of each one. To the
novice, there
are more practical considerations than the difference in sound. If he's
using
the built-in sound card in his computer I'd tell him to get the Radio Shack
mic because it doesn't require Phantom power. If he has a fair quality audio
interface with balanced inputs and phantom power, then he might want to
look into a condenser mic.

No it isn't You said there was a profound difference, I said that with this
demo, there wasn't. Who's got the tin ear, or who's got the better
imagination?

There are differences and there are differences. It doesn't make any
difference
(to me) which mic is used. But yes, there's a difference between the
sound of the
mics. But given the medium, the difference is irrelevant, and really
ambiguous.

 > It would make a further difference if I were

This is true with any mic and any recording medium.

No, I'd do the latter because then I'd know that I had the best
recording I could
make (within whatever constraints there were) and that it was not
limited by the
choice of microphone. What's an MP3 today might be a CD or DVD another day,
and I wouldn't want a CD to sound like it was recorded with a crappy mic
if I
could avoid it.

"brassplyer" wrote ...

Prove it.

So you are saying that on YouTube you can prove that different
mics sound "different". So what? That doesn't seem important
enough to even waste time discussing it.

Did you intend for that to make any sense?

On Nov 3, 8:26 pm, Mike Rivers <mriv...@d-and-d.com> wrote:

Again, it's a way to hear them initially. Is it imperative? Probably
not, but also not without value.

You're hyperbolizing.

I have a pair of crappy dynamics I got years ago that were on all-but-
free clearance at Radio Shack that I've kept only because I wouldn't
get enough for them to be worth the effort of selling them and I might
find a use for them some day. They work but they sound like mud. I
guarantee you'd hear a difference on Youtube between them and the
other dynamic I demo'd let alone the MXL.

Weren't you the one who said they should demo them at the retail
outlet? Going by your current logic, you shouldn't even do that.

What you do after Youtube is buy one or a pair and see what they sound
like going through your gear. Personally, I've bought all but maybe
one mic I've had sight unseen, but I also didn't have access to
YouTube etc. for much of the time either.

However, how the YouTube demo could be useful is if you hear that
you're not getting it to sound at least as good as the guy on YouTube,
you investigate why not. Assuming the mic's not defective, where am I
falling short?

The proof is that you've already said you could hear a difference. The
objective wasn't to reach a conclusion as to which is "better", it was
to demonstrate yes, you can discern a difference, no all mics don't
sound alike on YouTube.

Personally, there's no way I'd choose the dynamic over the MXL -
particularly if the guitar was in the spotlight because I know what
the ultimate potential is - the condenser captures far more of the
spectrum of the guitar's sound. I can hear more of "the wood". There's
a sheen that's apparent with the condenser that's simply absent from
the dynamic. I don't think it's possible that you don't already know
this.

If I were trying to really make the recording pretty, besides doing
some more experimenting with mic position and eq tweaking, I'd record
in stereo and I wouldn't do it sitting in front of the computer 6 feet
from an open window.

I'd ask if you're denying the difference would be readily obvious even
with an .mp3 but I already know you know it would be, and I also know
that you're going to continue to obfuscate.

That's right!  And if you cook it right, industrial waste can taste
just as good as raw sewage!
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra.  C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Nov 3, 10:09 pm, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Must be hyperbole night at RAP

On Nov 3, 9:35 pm, "Richard Crowley" <rcrow...@xp7rt.net> wrote:

Mike Rivers acknowledged he could hear a difference between the two
mics I demo'd. I can hear the difference.

If you're of a mind to insist to the point of absurdity that you can't
by all means feel free.

Since you asked, the "so what" is that it was previously asserted that
different mics won't sound different. It wasn't to claim YouTube
represents the pinnacle of audio reproduction or that the mics I
mentioned are unsurpassed by any other in any way, but that claims of
YouTube audio being so abysmal that you can't discern one mic from
another are curmudgeonly hyperbole.

And yet you and a couple of others are.

If you include the context in which it was said it makes perfect
sense. The claim was made on the order that "it didn't matter what mic
was used" if it's "just" an mp3 since mp3 fidelity is so piss poor you
can't tell. Bullshit, you most certainly can tell.

This entire line of debate originated from pointless bitching
mischaracterizing the fact that I pointed the OP to some Youtube and
Vimeo examples of mics I suggested. A couple of folks took the time to
make ridiculous, inaccurate assertions, I took the time to shoot them
down.

It almost sounds like some of you feel animosity toward YouTube
because they don't stream uncompressed audio and people don't listen
to it from a tuned mixing room through top of the line gear. None of
which is necessary for it to be possible to hear differences in
quality of audio, or in this case to determine that a given mic might
be worth checking out.

On Tue 2037-Nov-03 20:26, Mike Rivers writes:

WOuld agree with that assessment.  IF I"m wanting to listen
critically to make judgments I don't want to have to listen
through a less than suitable playback chain.

I'd also want to be able to hear what I was doing while I
was working with  the recording in full resolution, captured properly.  My recording's going to have enough going against it in the lossy compression process, the least i can do with it is give it the best quality possible going in.

I wouldn't make a subjective judgment on anything audio
after listening to a lossy format such as mp3 or yOutube.
Just isn't how I work.

Regards,
           Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet<->Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

On Nov 4, 4:31 am, Richard.Webb.my.f...@116-901.ftn.wpusa.dynip.com

Yet you also miss the point of the exercise, which was only to prove
the point that yes, a difference can be heard, not "which mic is
better".

And at no time was any assertion made that one should make a final,
definitive conclusion based on such other than "it might be worth
checking out and trying it for myself".

But let's clarify something - you're claiming that under no
circumstances, at *any* quality level currently available with .mp3 or
any other typical online audio format would you be able to form any
impression whatsoever of any element of a recording.

You and I both know that's just nonsense.

I don't know that anyone ever said exactly that. What I think I said,
and what
others have implied, is that given the constraints of the medium, the
differences
don't matter, at least not to anyone who isn't intent on trying to hear
a difference.
But there are many instances for which I could say the same thing even with
high resolution, uncompressed, wide band recording. But for other
instances,
different mics can offer more mixing options and bring out details that
might be
noticeable if not smeard over by data reduction or poor quality playback
equipment.

But what can you tell, and who can tell it?

Nothing like that at all. YouTube is great. But not for its audio
quality, for
its entertainment and educational value. I wouldn't use a cassette recording
to evaluate microphones, but I've certainly enjoyed plenty of cassettes when
that was the popular medium. Same with YouTube.

You could do that before YouTube, too. But a lot of people are hesitant to
do that. First off, what do you do if you decide you don't care for the mic
that you bought? Some stores won't allow you to return microphones, claiming
"health reasons" so you're either stuck with your purchase or you have to
sell the mic yourself, usually at some loss. And even if you buy from a
dealer
who does take returns, I'm amazed at the number of people who don't feel
comfortable about returning something that doesn't work for them. It's too
much trouble to contact the dealer, get a return authorization, pack it up,
pay for shipping, etc.

That's not a big deal if you're "stuck" with a $50 mic - it's bound to
be good
for something, sometime. But if you bought a $500 mic, found that it didn't
sound any bettter than the $100 mic you already have, then what?

Also, unless it's a mechanical or electrical issue (like not having phantom
power or the wrong kind of connector), it's not really a matter of how the
mic will work with your GEAR, but more significantly, for your PROJECTS.
You might get a mic that works really well with a kick drum, but if you
need to record vocals or acoustic guitars, it could be entirely wrong. There
are plenty of mics that I wouldn't mind using on anything (on the cheap,
an SM57 is one) but if I was looking for the perfect mic for MY voice,
and on
a particular song, I'd want to be able to do a shootout that couldn't be
done on YouTube.

 > Personally, I've bought all but maybe one mic I've had sight unseen

Me, too, but then I've only bought mics that have a good reputation and
which I know I've heard before - on real records and CDs, or on stage. And
I have some reason for buying that particular microphone.

That's an entirely different thing. You may learn something about how to
make better recordings, and that's never a bad thing. But if that were the
goal, rather than having a seascape to watch while listening ot the mics,
it would be helpful if the video showed where the mics were placed, and
how the sound changes when they're moved around. That way, even if
the differences were pretty subtle and seemed insignificant on their own,
you could try the same experiments with your own system and hear the
differences much more clearly.

And again, I ask - why is this important?

I know that's true in general, but if I didn't already know it, I couldn't
say from the YouTube demo that I was hearing  "more wood" or more
"spectrum."

news:be8a17f5-4b84-4bb6-983b-6220129e3573@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com

Well, it is some of the usual old-timer anxiety about technology. And since
I'm an old-timer too, I have a little angst to share as well.

Like them, I'm trying to figure out what's the point of the exercise.

If the point were that YouTube HD is a true high fidelity medium, the usual
way to do that is to take something that has known high quality and
diagnostic properties, and run it through YouTube and compare it to the
original. This is one of those tests that is very easy to do with a lot of
experimental controls, and even do a proper time-synched, level-matched, ABX
or other DBT.

That would let us get some idea if your assertions about YouTube HD have any
legs to stand on. If you have any questions about how to do such a thing,
check out the Hydrogen Audio Forum (Google is your friend).  They love this
sort of thing and have relevant expertise and free tools running out of
their ears. ;-)

If the point were that MXL 990s are really pretty good mics, then you need
to look at the collected works of a certain Mr. Ty Ford. He has a bunch of
microphone comparisons posted on the web.  "Ty Ford Microphone test" got me
immediate pay dirt on Google.  Interestingly enough, many of Ty's videos
were done with QuickTime, which in my book is only a little less suspect
than YouTube. But, since the locals here have not been trashing his videos
like they seem to be trashing yours, you might want to see what he's doing
right, other than being a well-respected old timer named Ty Ford. ;-)

One's own voice is a fascinating test signal. I have often reasonably
accurately assessed a mic just by speaking into it and hearing myself in
cans or via playback over a decent system. Moving the mic around gts one
an idea of off-axis performance, which is where I often find big
differences between lesser and greater mics.

Yesterday in a nice studio I had the chance to sing into three different
LDC's, an AKG C414TLII, a Neumann U-87, and a Klaus Heyne modified U-67.
We're recording a trio of two vocals, either two guitars, or a guitar
and a fiddle or mandolin, and a cellist. We're tracking live without
headphones and we were working through mic combos seeking the best setup
to get a good sound from each source and the most favorable rejection,
also to be thought of as the most favorable constructive interference.

I sound like shit over the AKG, okay over the 87, and as my daughter
said, like me on the 67. Was interesting. Playback can be over NS10's, a
nice set of smaller Genelecs, or a pair of Dunleavy's taller than I am.

I've not spent enough time (just don't have it) watching YouTube, but so
far I haven't been impressed with the sound I've heard. OTOH, some of
the historical footage of live performances have been wonderful.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

Hell, you can hear a difference between a microphone and that same mike
moved a couple inches away.  Just being able to hear a difference between
two samples is not a useful criterion for anything.

Oh, you can form an impression all right.  But will it be a valid one?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra.  C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Buy some of the old classics.  Everyone should have an SM-57, an EV 635A,
and maybe an RE-20.  The first two are very cheap, and all three can be
found used.  The first two are very touchy about loading and will benefit
from a shunt resistor in a barrel connector if you are using a modern
transformerless preamp.

Buy some of the better dynamic mikes being made today.  The EV N/D 408
and 468 mikes are good enough to use in the far field.  They aren't very
expensive, and they are remarkably convenient for a lot of things.
They aren't a 441, but they aren't priced like a 441 either.

The thing is, the SP-1 and the MXL603 both have capsules which are patterned
after the same old German capsule, but they're made a little differently.
Consistency on both of them isn't so hot, but the SP-1 is being resold by
some people who are demanding the factory make something that sounds good
instead of insanely bright.

Take a hundred bucks to a good local studio, ask them if they can get
you a good deal on a few hours of spare time that they'd normally have
unbooked.  Record yourself on everything they have in the mike locker,
then take it home and listen to it.  You may find the mike you like the
best isn't particularly expensive.  Then again, you might find it's is.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra.  C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

I rarely go to Ty's videos when I read his reviews, for reasons which
I've already
expressed here. But when I do, it's to see how he had the mics set up,
so I can
get a sense of what I'm hearing in terms of ambience, not just what's
being recorded.
Also, Ty tends to show the mics off not just in general, but where he
considers them
to be particularly useful or where they do a particularly good job. A
lot of his recordings
are of his own guitars in his home studio, but he has recorded examples
of mics
made in a full blown recording studio, or in a live performance venue.

Also, Ty's text description of the mics is, in general, very good. He
knows what
engineers listen for and describes those characteristics well in words.
I really
don't have to listen to a recording to know what he's talking about. But
then,
his goals when reviewing a microphone are different, I suspect, from yours.

Just for the record, I think you'd be amazed at the sound you'd get from
an iPod using .wav files instead of .mp3 or AAC.

I have an 80gb 5th gen iPod Video, and while the mp3s do sound pretty
bad, the .wavs sound very listenable.

JMHSO

---Jeff

On Wed 2037-Nov-04 12:10, Arkansan Raider writes:

Maybe, but the user interface on one of them things ain't
exactly blind man friendly.  I"ll stick with a cd player or
the computer.

Probably so, looked at one briefly and found the ui a pita
for folks like me.

But, then that was only briefly, and a friend's.

Regards,
           Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet<->Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

Crap. Sorry about that, my friend. I keep forgetting.

Roger that.

---Jeff

On Nov 4, 7:02 am, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:

I'm sure Ty's tests are great and I look forward to examining them.
While I suggested that mic and I already know they're decent,  the
quality of the MXL 990 wasn't the point at all as far as the debate
I've been engaging in.

The point was one that grew out of some grousing simply because I told
the OP "here's an example of these mics" on YouTube and another site
Vimeo. They carried on as if I had committed some crime against the
audio world by directing the OP to these links. The "quality of
YouTube audio" was really a side issue resulting from this. I was
debunking an assertion that one can't tell *anything* from Youtube
audio and the notion that "it doesn't matter" what mic you use because
YouTube audio is so inherently shitty. If you can hear differences in
character between mics on YouTube then obviously it *does* matter -
i.e. there's more than enough fidelity potential for one recording to
sound substantially better than another.

In article <hcs1lo$oj...@panix2.panix.com>,
 klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

I'd add that you bring in your own mic pre if you don't plan on buying
another one. Mics can sound quite different in another pre.

I wonder if Scott has listened to a 414b-uls and an 80's 87 plugged into
a really nice pre.

David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com

On Nov 4, 8:58 am, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

In this case it serves as proof that the fidelity is good enough to be
able to make such distinctions, when it was previously claimed
otherwise. If you can hear these differences, then to state "it
doesn't matter what mic you use" is clearly not correct.

How many examples can you point to where something sounds clean,
clear, well balanced, musical on YouTube or in mp3 form where it
sounds worse in non-streamed/compressed form?

How about "You can't tell anything about a mic that matters from YouTube
because the audio is so shitty."   Will that do?

 > If you can hear differences in

But my point is that one didn't sound subtantially better than the other.
Yet you seemed convinced, either because of your personal bias that
a condenser mic is always better on a guitar than a dynamic, or, hopefully,
because of what you heard in your own studio with "full" fidelity that the
MXL 990 was the better mic. The difference was you and I were listening
to different things, so how are we expected to come to the same conclusions?