I had a tube mic go south two minutes before air time. It wasn't a good
day. :-[
Shai
On 04/02/2011 00:59, Angie Dickinson Mickle wrote:
> Louis,
> You said that much better than I tried to.
>
> Angie Dickinson Mickle
> Avocado Productions
> Broomfield, CO
> www.avocadoproductions.com
> 800-246-3811
>
> Visit us on Facebook
> http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=118773287678
> Or Twitter
> http://twitter.com/AvocadoProd
>
> Louis Hone wrote:
>> Hi again,
>>
>> I remember reading an interview with Phil Ramone where he talked
>> about a mic
>> that was only used for vocals (it may have been a 47 or a 67 - my
>> memory is
>> shot). It was never to be cleaned, restored or used for anything else
>> but
>> vocals, because apparently the micro layers of human breath on the
>> capsule
>> had turned that particular mic into a gem.
>>
>> Good engineers know their mics (not the models but the actual ones
>> they have
>> in their cabinet). They know that such a mic produces a particular
>> sound and
>> the same model produces a different sound. I met a colleague years
>> ago who
>> had a vast collection of ribbon mics and dynamic mics that had never
>> seen
>> phantom power across them and to him these "virgin" mics sounded
>> better than
>> those that had been hooked up to phantom power from the console.
>>
>> Recording sound is not recipe based like in a cookbook. It's more like
>> painting: you have to know what you want to achieve and start by
>> using the
>> right tools (canvas, paintbrush, pigment, etc). So an old beat up 77 may
>> sound more appropriate for the sound you are trying to achieve.
>>
>> The tube revival craze drives me crazy because old engineers like me
>> know
>> that Pultecs could sound horrible (noisy, distorted, etc) if they
>> weren't
>> adjusted regularly. In a rack where you had 5, none of them sounded the
>> same. But you knew that unit number three's sound was the one you
>> wanted for
>> a particular instrument in a particular session. Same with old 67s or
>> 47s.
>> We've all had our stories of a tube mic going haywire during a session.
>> So it all boils down to the fact that mics, processing gear,
>> consoles, etc
>> are tools that you use for a particular purpose. But you have to know
>> your
>> tools and that requires years and years of patient learning and using
>> your
>> EARS (wow what a concept ).
>>
>> Louis
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Angie Dickinson Mickle
>> Sent: 3 février 2011 14:35
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] How would a band be setup for recording in
>> the late
>> 1920s?
>>
>> Tom,
>>
>> I only responded because it made no sense to me to replace the guts
>> of a ribbon mic with a condenser purely to upgrade the sound of the
>> mic. As it turns out it was more for the visual.
>>
>> Regarding old mics , I'd rather use my ears than read a spec sheet.
>> Specs mean nothing if the mic sounds good. We have two SM-81's. One
>> manufactured in the late seventies or early eighties. The other
>> dates to the late 90's or early 2000's. This model has never changed
>> according to Shure. Yet, both sound completely different. This
>> information demonstrates your point. But here is the catch. The
>> older one sounds better. It is fuller where the newer one is more
>> toppy. Do I want to have the older one brought up to spec? No way.
>> I love how it sounds. This also illustrates that you can't trust
>> that a commonly used mic is always going to sound the same from
>> studio to studio.
>>
>> Our almost 70 year old 77B has never been restored. Unless some bozo
>> blows into it, we are not interested in having it "repaired" or
>> brought up to spec. It sounds great as is. When it comes to old
>> mics, it boils down to knowing *your* mic well enough to make the
>> knowledgeable decision as to what instrument to use it on or room to
>> use it in.
>>
>> Angie Dickinson Mickle
>> Avocado Productions
>> Broomfield, CO
>> www.avocadoproductions.com
>> 800-246-3811
>>
>> Visit us on Facebook
>> http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=118773287678
>> Or Twitter
>> http://twitter.com/AvocadoProd
>>
>> Tom Fine wrote:
>>> I have to put a little backspin on this notion.
>>>
>>> Yes, when they are in good working order, the famous vintage mics
>>> sound great and are very useful when their "flavor" is desired.
>>> However, I've had some interesting conversations with the guys who
>>> restore them and it's surprising how many un-restored, damaged,
>>> ancient mics are in use in famous and semi-famous recording
>>> situations today. One of the better makers of modern condenser mics
>>> explained to me how the gold sputtering can't help but start coming
>>> off the older European mics because the material it was sputtered
>>> onto becomes brittle and warps/shrinks with age. In the case of the
>>> ribbon mics, things like rubber, fabric and the ribbons themselves
>>> change over time, especially when exposed to breath and spittle. The
>>> mics become less uniform in their response and less sensitive
>>> overall, a former RCA technician still in the restoration business
>>> told me.
>>>
>>> So yes, an old Neumann, AKG, RCA or other famous mic is very
>>> desireable today, because they sound good when they work properly.
>>> But "work properly" is the key term here, and just because something
>>> looks good doesn't mean it works to its published specs.
>>>
>>> Also, I'm sure there are many recordists on this list who would
>>> prefer a modern less-colored mic for what they are doing. If you
>>> look at the published curves on these old mics, there was a lot of
>>> coloration built-in, which is desireable to some and undesireable to
>>> others. I would suggest that modern recording methods, which are
>>> essentially noiseless and offer very wide dynamic and frequency
>>> range, emphasize the coloration on these old mics more than
>>> back-in-the-day recording methods. Again, whether that's a plus or a
>>> minus depends on the situation and the user.
>>>
>>> -- Tom Fine
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Angie Dickinson Mickle"
>>> <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 10:41 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] How would a band be setup for recording in
>>> the late 1920s?
>>>
>>>
>>>> The couple of instances given were understandable. 25 years ago,
>>>> these mics were probably not that desirable. But to tout
>>>> improvements in sound would not be a selling point today.
>>>>
>>>> Angie Dickinson Mickle
>>>> Avocado Productions
>>>> Broomfield, CO
>>>> www.avocadoproductions.com
>>>> 800-246-3811
>>>>
>>>> Visit us on Facebook
>>>> http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=118773287678
>>>> Or Twitter
>>>> http://twitter.com/AvocadoProd
>>>>
>>>> Dan Nelson wrote:
>>>>> Im with you Scott, my mic collection for big band sessions have
>>>>> 77dx, 47's, BK5's. All have that warm ribbon sound on the right
>>>>> sections.
>>>>> dnelsonward
>>>>>
>>>>> --- On Wed, 2/2/11, Scott <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Scott <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] How would a band be setup for recording
>>>>>> in the late 1920s?
>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>> Date: Wednesday, February 2, 2011, 9:03 PM
>>>>>> Me too. I have U-87's and 414's and
>>>>>> many others, but the unmodified but
>>>>>> restored BK-5's and Dx-77's I have are terrific all by
>>>>>> themselves. I admit,
>>>>>> it took a while to find the right person with original RCA
>>>>>> parts down to the
>>>>>> wind screen liner material to keep them properly... But some
>>>>>> things are
>>>>>> just not replaceable with a look alike. There are retired
>>>>>> guys out there
>>>>>> still that have the bits and knowledge you need.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If it is a music video they are to appear in, the original
>>>>>> parts serve as
>>>>>> well as the look-alikes. If you want to record... Well, the
>>>>>> right mic
>>>>>> regardless of vintage for the a source material is what is
>>>>>> order. No one
>>>>>> needs to know what they look like.....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> YMMV !
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
>>>>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>>>>>> On Behalf Of Angie Dickinson Mickle
>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 2:47 PM
>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] How would a band be setup for
>>>>>> recording in the late
>>>>>> 1920s?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Louis,
>>>>>> Why would you do that? It seems to me that if someone
>>>>>> wanted the sound of a
>>>>>> 414, they'd just rent a 414.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Angie Dickinson Mickle
>>>>>> Avocado Productions
>>>>>> Broomfield, CO
>>>>>> www.avocadoproductions.com
>>>>>> 800-246-3811
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Visit us on Facebook
>>>>>> http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=118773287678
>>>>>> Or Twitter
>>>>>> http://twitter.com/AvocadoProd
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Louis Hone wrote:
>>>>>>> A crystal microphone that sounds good ??? I
>>>>>> can't comment on this
>>>>>>> actual broadcast, but I wouldn't go with looks
>>>>>> alone: I have several
>>>>>>> vintage microphones that I rent out and some of them I
>>>>>> have modified, so
>>>>>> that the
>>>>>>> guts are AKG 414s or Neumann U-87, or
>>>>>> KM-84s. So they may look like RCA
>>>>>>> 44s or RCA 77s or RCA BK5s but they sound very
>>>>>> different.
>>>>>>> Louis
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
>>>>>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>>>>>> On Behalf Of Daniel Roth
>>>>>>> Sent: 2 février 2011 14:19
>>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] How would a band be setup for
>>>>>> recording in the
>>>>>>> late 1920s?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I seem to recall a Fresh Air broadcast in the mid-90's
>>>>>> with the
>>>>>>> Squirrel Nut Zippers in which the producers employed a
>>>>>> vintage
>>>>>>> Philmore Crystal Microphone from the 20's. The entire
>>>>>> room was
>>>>>>> captured by this one mic and it sounded tremendously
>>>>>> authentic, despite
>>>>>> the FM broadcast.
>>>>>>> ------
>>>>>>> Dan Roth
>>>>>>> Audio Technician
>>>>>>> Walter J Brown Media Archives and
>>>>>>> Peabody Awards Collection
>>>>>>> University of Georgia
>>>>>>> Main Library
>>>>>>> Athens, GA
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>>> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
>>>>>>> [[log in to unmask]]
>>>>>> on behalf of Tom Fine
>>>>>>> [[log in to unmask]]
>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 12:53 PM
>>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] How would a band be setup for
>>>>>> recording in the
>>>>>>> late 1920s?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Start with engineer Raymond Sooey's journal:
>>>>>>> http://www.davidsarnoff.org/soo-maintext.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He may have run the very sessions you are asking
>>>>>> about.
>>>>>>> -- Tom Fine
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>> From: "Kathryn Hobgood Ray" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 12:17 PM
>>>>>>> Subject: [ARSCLIST] How would a band be setup for
>>>>>> recording in the
>>>>>>> late 1920s?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi folks, I am wondering if anyone has a resource
>>>>>> recommendation that
>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>> discuss how a band would record in the late 1920s?
>>>>>> (Specifically for
>>>>>>>> Victor.) My colleague here in New Orleans tells me
>>>>>> that the
>>>>>>> instrumentalists
>>>>>>>> would arrange themselves around a microphone in a
>>>>>> semicircle, the
>>>>>>>> loudest instruments being staggered further away.
>>>>>> The vocalist,
>>>>>>>> meanwhile, would have his/her/their own mic some
>>>>>> distance from the
>>>>>>>> band, and the two lines would run straight to the
>>>>>> machine. Does this
>>>>>>>> sound accurate to you? I need to verify this setup
>>>>>> and would love some
>>>>>> resource suggestions.
>>>>>>>> Thank you!
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Kathryn Hobgood Ray
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>> 504.650.1238
>>>>>>>> http://www.snoozerquinn.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> =
>>>>>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>>>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>>>>>> Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3418 -
>>>>>> Release Date:
>>>>>>> 02/02/11 02:34:00
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security,
>>>>>> version of virus
>>>>>>> signature database 5841 (20110202) __________
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.eset.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of
>>>>> virus signature database 5841 (20110202) __________
>>>>>
>>>>> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.eset.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
>>> signature database 5843 (20110203) __________
>>>
>>> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>>>
>>> http://www.eset.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database:
>> 271.1.1/3420 - Release Date: 02/03/11
>> 02:34:00
>>
>> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
>> signature database 5844 (20110203) __________
>>
>> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>>
>> http://www.eset.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
|