dbock wrote on Sun, 14 February 2010 21:14 |
Klaus, I'm not sure I understand your premise clearly. Is it possible for you to re-state it? thanks, David
|
Gladly.
The video shows today's top popular recording stars at work in several world-class recording studios contributing (not faking) their vocal parts to a song intended to raise money for Haitian earthquake victims.
In the overwhelming majority of the vocals on this recording (and pretty much all other top-shelf vocals sung by top-shelf artists) the mics used are very old. With very few exceptions, that is still the norm today.
The video shows and condenses nicely something that seems like an anachronism in technology: heavy use of devices that are decades old in a technology field where the half-life of gear (think DAWs A-to-D's, storage media, etc, etc.) is rarely longer than two years, if even that long.
Regarding progress in microphones: all of today's larger manufacturers, and most of the boutique shops are concentrating on that old technology. Unless you regard as progress touting the look, technical features, names, and company logos of forty or fifty year-old mics, not to mention ads that keep harping on 'vintage' this and 'vintage' that for their current models.
If manufacturers would admit that nothing better than what was done decades ago can be produced today, and that the old bones cannot be improved upon, that would be one thing I could (for a little while longer) live with. But that is not the case: we get ever more technologically truncated and visually butchered semi-copies of the real thing (have you seen the current copy of the AKG C414EB?) accompanied by brazen advertisements claiming similar performance as the old workhorses. And that I find shameful, because it is deception.
So much for an attempt at an answer to David.
Others excuse the heavy vintage representation in the video with "that's what they happen to have in their studio". But that is not a valid argument, in my opinion. The top-shelf facilities do have the budget to replace gear in that price range at the drop of a hat, if they thought they could improve their microphone closet, image, or reputation.
Furthermore, blaming me as the messenger for the unpleasant message because I may have inferior, selfish motives does not address the issue: why do we still keep recording our most critical material with mics that are many decades old- if we are lucky enough to own them or can afford to purchase them?