R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
 21 
 on: February 09, 2018, 08:36:49 pm 
Started by gkippola - Last post by gkippola
Needed: AKG D30 microphone to mic stand/connector clip. It would have a side cable exit, and Tuchel threaded 3/c connector,  all-in-one. 

 22 
 on: February 09, 2018, 11:46:16 am 
Started by aremos - Last post by David Satz
Schoeps often receives requests for special versions of their microphones. They're a small company, and they give serious consideration to such requests. The CMC 6 xt exists because a customer requested a CMC 6 amplifier with response to 40 kHz and was willing to place a definite order for a batch of them at extra cost. Schoeps then asked around and found some other customers who were interested in this type of amplifier. So they not only produced the initial batch, but added it to their catalog, placing it along with other amplifier variants that they already offered. For example, amplifiers could optionally have their built-in low-cut filter set for a frequency below 20 Hz, and/or have +5 dB gain instead of unity; special engraving and surface finishes, etc. may also be ordered.

This implies no endorsement by Schoeps of any theory other than "it can be good business to give your customers what they ask for." The company caters to a perfectionist clientele, and if they believed that 40 kHz response gave audibly superior results--or maybe even if they thought that their customers by and large believed it--you'd expect them to make the "xt" their standard model, or a prestige/flagship model. Instead it is simply presented as an alternative for those who want it, along with other special versions.

--best regards

P.S.: Sennheiser is a different case; their chief of microphone design (Dr. Manfred Hibbing) is on the record with several statements about high sampling rates and extended high-frequency response for microphones. If Klaus feels that this isn't too far off-topic already, I could post some of what he's said in interviews and written in an AES paper about it. But I must say that I find some of his statements problematic.

 23 
 on: February 09, 2018, 09:43:19 am 
Started by bremusound - Last post by bremusound
Ok, i found out that it is Swiss made.  8)
Manufacturer was Jakob Bohli (JB) who made several studio microphones for the broadcasting corporations in Switzerland.

Infos (german) and pictures:

http://www.aaa-switzerland.ch/files/ansermet.pdf
http://www.schuepbach.org/verschiedenes/m_jb8cs.html

Still had no time to build a PSU....


 24 
 on: February 09, 2018, 03:33:30 am 
Started by aremos - Last post by Timtape

If we look further we can see, with the appearance of high samplerate recording systems, microphone manufacturers started to build microphones with defined frequency responses beyond 20 kHz, e.g. if you go to the Schoeps website the "Schoeps CMC 6xt U".

Just  commenting on this one point. I believe mics capable of above 20kHz response have been around a long time. B & K have been making measurement mics with diaphragms down to 1/8" diameter for this purpose. I think such mics were around since the 70's for industrial measurement purposes. So I dont think this came about because of higher sample rate recorders, or just because of them.

I believe these days most recording studios either do, or have the capability these days to, record at 96kHz or higher sample rate but I'm not so sure many insist on using mics with defined responses above 20kHz.


 

 25 
 on: February 08, 2018, 04:00:41 pm 
Started by aremos - Last post by klaus
I understood Kai's post as making two points:

1. We don't know whether the parallel evolution of microphones and recording technology through time was intentional or coincidental.

2. Regardless, mic manufacturers who did not adapt the sound of their mics to changes in recording technology went under or lost sales, whereas those who did, thrived, or had a better chance to survive.

 26 
 on: February 08, 2018, 02:04:46 pm 
Started by aremos - Last post by Timtape
I'm sorry Kai but I am struggling to understand what you are talking about here. I'm not sure what more to say.

Best wishes
Tim

 27 
 on: February 07, 2018, 02:51:28 pm 
Started by aremos - Last post by Kai
But the idea that studio microphone parameters were altered on the basis of such factors further downstream of the recording, or even downstream of the microphone is something I dont remember ever encountering before.
Think of the sound change from Neumann's M7 capsule to its successor, the K47, and correlate it with the sound evolution of the typical audio chain of the regarding time. I can see some coincidence.

Do you think this difference happened just by chance or wouldn't an advanced company like Neumann have done this on purpose?

I admit I'm fishing in muddy waters, but... nothing comes from nothing they say.
You can even turn that around -  if the sound of a microphone wouldn't have fit to the contemporary taste and circumstances it would not have been a commercial success and we would not know about it today.

If we look further we can see, with the appearance of high samplerate recording systems, microphone manufacturers started to build microphones with defined frequency responses beyond 20 kHz, e.g. if you go to the Schoeps website the "Schoeps CMC 6xt U".

 28 
 on: February 07, 2018, 10:58:55 am 
Started by aremos - Last post by Timtape
Sure that sounds fine but in the previous post you seemed to suggest mic manufacturers changed the design or performance of their studio mics on the basis of the active electronic components of the day in amps and pre's  like tubes, germanium or silicon transistors etc. Or on the basis of whether the music recordings were released on vinyl, cassette or 8 track etc.
It's true mastering engineers took  care to optimise  the recorded signal as it was  cut for vinyl, and perhaps to a lesser extent for cassette and 8 track.
It's also true that at mixing stage, staff listened to mixes on smaller low fidelity speakers like Auratones to help gauge if a mix still sounded reasonable on limited fidelity consumer systems.
But the idea that studio microphone parameters were altered on the basis of such factors further downstream of the recording, or even downstream of the microphone is something I dont remember ever encountering before.

Regards
Tim

 29 
 on: February 07, 2018, 09:04:27 am 
Started by aremos - Last post by Kai
Again do you have any evidence for that?
Yes, I have as I have been involved in audio developments of all kinds for a long time. It's always an interaction between trying out something, listen to it, measure it, test it in the real world and with your potential customers and then change it until everyone involved is satisfied.
This does not mean I have insight how Neumann developed their microphones in 1950, because I was not born at that time, but I guess it wasn't much different.
I bet that they did a lot of listening and other practical evaluations (including recording), because the possibility for measurements was much more limited, and they had years of development for every model, and a high commercial pressure doing it right.

 30 
 on: February 06, 2018, 05:55:11 pm 
Started by J. Mike Perkins - Last post by klaus
Don't count on the moderator's ability to count!

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10