R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
 91 
 on: December 26, 2017, 10:19:53 am 
Started by klaus - Last post by Timtape
Again, a mic's "accuracy" or "fidelity"  relates to  how well its electrical output conforms to the sound pressure waves presented to it. National and International standards are based on this objective criterion. Here, tastes, preferences and opinions are irrelevent.

Interestingly Chesky has been making and marketing dummy head recordings using small Bruel & Kjaer mics:

"In 2011, Chesky Records incorporated High Resolution Technology in their label, and introduced binaural recordings. The Binaural+ masters are captured in high-resolution (24-bit/192kHz) sound using a binaural dummy head nicknamed "Lars". David Chesky collaborated with Princeton professor Edgar Y. Choueiri to begin producing binaural recordings. The purpose of the technology is to capture three-dimensional sound and imaging."

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesky_Records

 92 
 on: December 25, 2017, 04:46:13 pm 
Started by klaus - Last post by klaus
...And two notable audiophile labels that use(d), pardon my language, "subjective" mics on pianos: Chesky (SM69) and Windham Hill (U67). 

B&Ks/DPAs, in my opinion, are just another flavor that works well in some applications, and not so well in others. This proves to me my point again: there's no such thing as an accurate mic, only ones that, in a particular situation, translate musical intention well, or not so well.

Merry Christmas, and a healthy New Year, everyone, and thanks for keeping things lively around here!

 93 
 on: December 25, 2017, 01:48:28 pm 
Started by klaus - Last post by Jim Williams
Two notable labels using B+K mics are Pony Canyon Classics and MA Recordings.

 94 
 on: December 25, 2017, 01:54:56 am 
Started by klaus - Last post by Marik
I'd like to nudge the discussion back to the original subject: accurate mics are a myth.

To start with, virtually all microphone products which emphasize claims of accuracy are not selling well, compared to other mics in the premium price class.

So what's the problem here? It's either that the product does not achieve the manufacturer's claim, and potential customers notice its shortcomings, or the claim itself is pointing in the wrong direction by appealing to a goal not perceived by a critical mass of engineers as either attainable or worthy.


Klaus,

First, earlier you mentioned that B&K/DPA are not popular--sure, they are not for everything and everyone, but there are uses with superb results--notably in classical music, Baroque Ensembles, orchestra recordings, piano, among others, i.e. where the least of color and max intelligibility between notes/different groups are of concern... For example, I have hard time of imagining putting mint original Elam251 on classical piano... In this respect, we can say that say, DPA, or Schoeps would be more accurate, which anyway, has rather relative meaning, to start with.

I don't have statistics on my hand, but I'd think they do not sell as much as some others just because they have uses in much smaller market, but of course, by no means it says that they are inferior.

Microphones are meant to transport sound waves that are ultimately meant for, and can only be interpreted by, human hearing.

I believe, the problem here is much more complex and a lot has to do with psychoacoustics. Ultimately, for us as listeners the idea of 'accuracy' in the end is how well the music source in real life (or our idea about it) translates into the recording. Here not the least plays obvious mismatch of translation of directionality of source, acoustics of the room, our hearing, and subsequent playback chain. I.e. mechanism of this translation is disturbed from the very beginning...

That is, our ears in real life in the room 'hear' the music source omni, with natural acoustics/reverberation of the room. When we need to translate music event of the given source through recording we put say, cardioid microphone, we place a singer into a booth, after that play back through the speakers (are they omni, cardioid, fig8, or what?) and then our 'omni' ears and our brain should answer main question--does it sound true to the source, or does it sound musical (mind you, in a completely different room)?

In a sense it reminds translation to a foreign language, say, Hamlet--take Wieland, Schlegel, and Flatter German translations of the monologue--all of them are completely different... but still Hamlet monologue. Is the translation accurate? After all any translation is just interpretation and the answer is if that interpretation finds our emotional response and if what we hear during the playback matches the image of 'ideal sound' in our brains...

BTW, aforementioned binaural heads did not get wider use exactly for that directivity mismatch. While they sound well in headphones they just did not translate through the speakers.

Best, Mark Fouxman
Samar Audio Design
www.samaraudiodesign.com
Omni8 Audio
www.omni8audio.com

 95 
 on: December 23, 2017, 06:05:23 am 
Started by Thomas W. Bethel - Last post by Thomas W. Bethel
Have a WONDERFUL HOLIDAY and a HAPPY and PROSPEROUS NEW YEAR

 96 
 on: December 22, 2017, 09:25:11 pm 
Started by Thomas W. Bethel - Last post by KAyo
I agree, you should try it.

My main interest was the Sontec incarnation.
The Sontec shoot out on Youtube was interesting.

I would like to know what engineers here feel about the sound etc..

Thanks guys.


Ciao'
Kayo

 97 
 on: December 22, 2017, 10:19:39 am 
Started by mu90r - Last post by mu90r
OK thanks :-)
I will proceed to buy then ....

I will inform you how much I am in my home.

 98 
 on: December 21, 2017, 08:07:29 pm 
Started by mu90r - Last post by uwe ret
The Neumann UC 4 swivel adapter cable was only available with the old European standard 1/2" thread, or later upon special request for the American marketplace with 5/8"-27 thread.  The picture shows the root diameter for the thread of the Neumann UC 4, which is smaller than the thread diameter. 
Go with your Amazon/Camvate adapter (equivalent to K&M 216) and the K&M 219 adapter, and all will be OK.

 99 
 on: December 21, 2017, 05:04:07 pm 
Started by mu90r - Last post by mu90r
Here some pictures of the measures ...
Adapter 9.3 mm (approx) 0,366 inches
Interior mount: 10.4 mm (approx) 0.409 inches
Depth of the mount 15 mm

I enclose some photos and I await your final verdict :-)
I thank you Klaus and the participants for your help.

 100 
 on: December 20, 2017, 09:41:54 pm 
Started by mu90r - Last post by klaus
The adaptor Uwe linked has a 1/2" male and 3/8" female end.

If the female thread in the U47 swivel mount measures indeed 1/2", then you could just mate the adaptor you just bought with the one Uwe suggests. Now you would have the proper male link to your 1/2" female on the swivel mount, and the 5/8" female for the mic stand.

What I usually end up doing when I encounter old thread sizes: have a good machine shop which has a 5/8"/27 tap on hand cut a new thread into the existing barrel. That's the cleanest solution, and impossible to distinguish from the stock 5/8-27 barrels Neumann used for the U.S. and other markets.

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]