R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
 1 
 on: Today at 02:11:34 am 
Started by mu90r - Last post by Kai
Camera and microphone companies switched to the modern 5/8" standard in the 1960s, though there are still plenty of devices with the old 3/8" thread around.
I don't know any camera that uses 5/8" thread, in cameras 1/4" UNC is the standard.
Some Mid-Format cams are said to use 3/4 UNC, which is the most common thread you find in Europe for microphone stands.

 2 
 on: Yesterday at 11:16:30 pm 
Started by klaus - Last post by Timtape
Responding to your post Klaus:

Earlier I suggested that in mere music recording, the strictest accuracy in a mic is unnecessary.

In addition, many vocal artists want a mic that "makes me sound better than I actually am". We're now in subjective territory. What characteristics in a mic make a particular vocalist "sound better"? Will a wide range of  listeners, producers, engineers all agree on which mic makes which vocalist "sound better", let alone "best"?

Then as many who  make recordings for release to the public know, other effects such as EQ, reverb and compression have been regularly applied to the vocal, and other instruments for many decades. These days, much more detailed "microsurgery" can be made. What we have been  hearing on many recordings for decades is not simply the raw output of the mic(s). 

Then there's the issue of the playback equipment used, and the general listening environment, which varies hugely. Then the preferences of the listener.

But all this is a long way from the original topic concerning the accuracy of microphones... which I thought we were getting back to.




 3 
 on: Yesterday at 04:01:12 pm 
Started by mu90r - Last post by mu90r
Thank you very much Klaus.
I'll look for it immediately :-)

By the way, I appreciate the comment of the dead link.
I have corrected the link in case someone ever needs this information.

 4 
 on: Yesterday at 03:00:59 pm 
Started by mu90r - Last post by klaus
Camera and microphone companies switched to the modern 5/8" standard in the 1960s, though there are still plenty of devices with the old 3/8" thread around.

What you need is an adaptor: 3/8"-16 male to 5/8"-27 female.

Here is one of many examples you can purchase:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1092899-REG/windtech_m_1_5_8_27_female_to.html

P.S.: The link you provided is dead

 5 
 on: Yesterday at 02:31:31 pm 
Started by mu90r - Last post by mu90r
Hello partners.
I have a Neumann U47 swivel mount, however the sizes of the female thread of the swivel and the microphone stand don't fit together.

I need an adapter that attaches the mount to the microphone stand, but I don't know which one to look for.
Can someone please help me identify the measurements?

The thread on the microphone swivel mount is this:
 
https://www.thomann.de/es/superlux_ms_200.htm?ref=search_rslt_superlux+200_139008_0

It seems that the mic stand thread is 5/8".

This is a photo of old mount.

Thanks in advance.

 6 
 on: December 15, 2017, 11:43:36 pm 
Started by klaus - Last post by klaus
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.

Microphones are meant to transport sound waves that are ultimately meant for, and can only be interpreted by, human hearing. Few top-flight engineers, artists, and producers seem to appreciate a type of microphone that caters to a different goal.

 7 
 on: December 15, 2017, 03:53:12 pm 
Started by klaus - Last post by Jim Williams
When a human is involved as a tester the test becomes subjective, not objective.

That is why modern audio test equipement was invented. It won't test everything but everything it tests is objective.

 8 
 on: December 15, 2017, 04:03:28 am 
Started by Thomas W. Bethel - Last post by Hermetech Mastering
Yes, I am only checking here infrequently now. I've found the RGO forum the best recently, but no mastering specific sub forums, but I kinda like it that way.

 9 
 on: December 14, 2017, 06:13:53 pm 
Started by klaus - Last post by Timtape
You and I can take a mic, plug it into a suitable amp with high quality headphones,  say "check, 1,2,3" and listen to the result on the headphones. That has great value but it is not what we are talking about here.


How would you know the "objective" aspect of a mic's performance?

I'm not able to do this. Perhaps you arent able to do this. That doesnt mean it cannot be done.

We might have to  pay people to measure its objective performance to within National  Standards and tolerances, whether primary or secondary standards.

That is my understanding anyway.

 10 
 on: December 12, 2017, 07:26:03 pm 
Started by Thomas W. Bethel - Last post by Todd Loomis
I didn't even realize this forum was still active until today...  most of the people I know who used to post here are over at PRW now...   Looks like a few people are still lurking on here though.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10