Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[dwoz]

I hope this won't be taken as rabble-rousing...

but in the original context of the thread, which was "manley sightings", I believe skwaidu's comment is actually appropriate, even given the 'rules of evidence' that are in situ.

If, however, the original topic was covering the aesthetic experience of a Manley mic, our moderator's gentle rebuff would be within the letter, if not the spirit, of the rules.

One might even make the case that a choice of one mic over another for a particular application is utterly, wholly and completely subjective...there is NO BASIS in fact or standardization for a certain mic to be used over another in a certain application.  A particular CLASS of mics, certainly, but definitely not a specific instance of a mic, definitely...definitely not.  Given this unarguable, axiomatic fact, then the introduction of heresay, hyperbole, personal anecdote, or even dramatic flight of fancy, would be as valuable as any rigorous, well-defined first person comment.

After all...can there ever be a way to definitively say that a Manley is 'better' than a Shoeps or a Tele for recording music...or are you just blathering on about personal opinions?  When someone tells me what mic they like for a given application, I learn nothing about the mic, I only learn about the person.

So, in a very definite sense, the original poster's question was about people, not mics.

To illustrate this point...If I make a personal, first-person comment about how I use a C-3000 as my 'goto' mic in the clutch...well, then you hardly gain any insights about the mic, do you?  You can, however, gain quite an insight about me.  If you're following along here, you'd realize that a person with a mic locker in which a C-3000 was the better choice as often as not, was either blissfully unaware of the wonderful diverse world of microphones, or was recording something with a rather alien aesthetic to the norm.

In fact, it could also be argued quite sucessfully that the original question was really about the marquis value of Manley, or about Manley's marketing vis a vis their competitors, and NOT about the mics themselves.

Since 'concise-ness' was one of the rules around here, I have to finish the post...so to summarize, the skwaidu post was within the bounds of the rules, however the original thread perhaps was not.  Unpopular as it may be.

dwoz
david wozmak

[Skwaidu]

Dwoz, well put!

I wish I had the proficiency to write my thoughts like you do.

[gtoledo3]

I think that's Klaus's take on first hand info is refreshing. What is rude, is coming into someone'e house and saying their taste in funiture sucks... if you catch the metaphor. It's just tacky.

[Loco]

Skwaidu wrote on Tue, 25 May 2004 16:16

Klaus Heyne wrote on Tue, 25 May 2004 08:17 Sorry, your post, for what it's worth, is not worth much here. I'm relieved that at least some of the participants in this thread found the above statement to be untrue... Thanks Ola! I, on the other hand, found it to be rude.

Rude is to come here to do exactly the opposite of what they kindly asked you to do. FWIW, what you said was like quoting a magazine.

Quote:

I understand. But FWIW(again!) I can tell you that the name of the producer in question  is Jukka Backlund, and the guitar player is called Tuomo Borman.

It's like saying you've seen a picture of Steve Morales producing Ricky Martin on a Behringer mic. For none of us or the thread is any helpful.

Now... have you used the Manley mic? In what situation? What's the result you got?

[dwoz]

Loco wrote on Wed, 26 May 2004 09:13

It's like saying you've seen a picture of Steve Morales producing Ricky Martin on a Behringer mic. For none of us or the thread is any helpful. Now... have you used the Manley mic? In what situation? What's the result you got?

You do have a very significant and valid position here, but I believe it is mis-applied.  Allow me to explain for a paragraph or so...


When we're talking about microphones in general, or about general classes of microphones (e.g. ribbons, special design mics, different capsule patters such as omni, figure 8, etc), then application notes are quite valid and helpful.

But that isn't what we're discussing here.  The question was about a particular "high-end" mic, compared/contrasted to other "high-end" mics.  Now, I know its dangerous to make sweeping statements about things, but I think its safe to say that once you've gotten into the over-$2000US price range for a microphone, you're pretty much talking about an excellent product that will perform very well in most any situation it is applied in.  

You almost have to think up an excuse NOT to use it, compared to cheap mics, where you have to think up an excuse TO use it.

Comparing it to other mics in that range then becomes an exercise in subjectivity, whim.  One day you'll select the Manley, the next you'll grab the Josephsen, the next the Soundelux...the variables that dictate a particular choice are not transferrable between sessions, or perhaps even two different days of the same session...they're so contextual and subjective.

Compare this situation to one where we're talking about low-budget mics...low budget mics as a general rule, sound rather bad at just about everything, except usually there's ONE application or another in which it seems to just do very well.

For example, the AKG C-3000 I mentioned in my last post seems to function brilliantly as a talkback mic.  People seem to find that Octavas are usable as drum overheads...

SO, in the realm of the current discussion, I think the premise of Klaus' rule breaks down.  This doesn't mean I disrespect it, it just means that the rule ceases to provide utility.

In the general case, however, it is certainly refreshing to not have to wade through re-gurgitated press release information about how "Behringer mics are designed for digital recording"...

Thank you, over and out.

dwoz

[otek]

Guys....


I agree that the rule of hearsay versus first-hand experience is pretty clear-cut - i.e. "have you tried it or not"?

Nonetheless, the value, information-wise, of such info can be great - provided a proper source of the information is quoted.

If I wanted to convey an opinion stated by, say, (Helios console designer) Dick Swettenham, this is technically hearsay, but it can be valid and interesting from a historical or scientific standpoint. Unfortunately Mr. Swettenham is not with us anymore, so, his opinion can only be conveyed by others.

Look upon it as a research paper, book, or university dissertation. The source of the info must always be stated, and as long as it is, the inclusion of a quote or other information is valid, but naturally should always be regarded as a subjective opinion if that's what it is. That's what most of this is, after all - subjective opinion.

Finally, I must say that I am impressed by how well Klaus keeps track of the material posted in his forum. That, if anything, should be the lasting impression of this discussion.

[Skwaidu]

Loco, my intention with my first post was to provide one "Manley sighting".

In the "FWIW" part I tried to give information on the usage preferences of that particular sighting. (Mostly female vocs, acoustic guitar)

Aren't most mic recommendations we see like that btw? "I heard Sir Conan Blowhard uses a 421 on the snare. Maybe I should try it too so I can sell Platinum!" Or "I read on the internot that Loco likes his 441 on the hat. Let's try that. <Producer:> Who? Sir Conan Blowhard likes an Audix D1 on the hat, shouldn't we use that? I want to sell platinum."

[Loco]

dwoz wrote on Wed, 26 May 2004 07:49

But that isn't what we're discussing here.  The question was about a particular "high-end" mic, compared/contrasted to other "high-end" mics.  Now, I know its dangerous to make sweeping statements about things, but I think its safe to say that once you've gotten into the over-$2000US price range for a microphone, you're pretty much talking about an excellent product that will perform very well in most any situation it is applied in.

And that is exactly the point off this thread. How come such an expensive mic doesn't seem to be used extensively? Probably because it doesn't seem to be that good on vocals. Hell, it was designed for something else!

First hand experience. I've tried it twice.

The first time I got to the studio with the singer and the mic was there installed on the booth. Someone was using it on the previous session to record a guitar. We decided to give a try, but it didn't lasted 10 seconds. It just wasn't working on her voice. Too thin for what I'm used to. Now, I don't know how it performed on the guitar or what they were trying to achieve, so I'm not gonna say it's good on guitar either.

Second time around, a singer wanted to record with that mic because he saw it on a video. I set it right by the U87Ki to compare. He did a short take on the Manley and then I switched to the other one. The Manley didn't had the grunt his voice required, so we took it off the stand.

Now, these two experiences are way too short to be of any significance, but certainly are more significant than "I saw someone famous using it". It's a whole different thing to see a Formula one car speeding than to actually race the car.

[gtoledo3]

Skwaidu wrote on Wed, 26 May 2004 13:23

Loco, my intention with my first post was to provide one "Manley sighting". In the "FWIW" part I tried to give information on the usage preferences of that particular sighting. (Mostly female vocs, acoustic guitar) Aren't most mic recommendations we see like that btw? "I heard Sir Conan Blowhard uses a 421 on the snare. Maybe I should try it too so I can sell Platinum!" Or "I read on the internot that Loco likes his 441 on the hat. Let's try that. <Producer:> Who? Sir Conan Blowhard likes an Audix D1 on the hat, shouldn't we use that? I want to sell platinum."

I think that's what the other forums are for.

At first I was agreeing with you when I saw Klaus chew a few other guys out for the third hand info thing... but, in the end, this forum is full of a lot of very solid info, so it is hard to argue with the result even if the method may seem harsh at times. Certainly, nobody likes having one of their posts smacked down It is Klaus's forum, so he sets the rules...

[malice]

Loco wrote on Wed, 26 May 2004 17:49

And that is exactly the point off this thread. How come such an expensive mic doesn't seem to be used extensively? Probably because it doesn't seem to be that good on vocals. Hell, it was designed for something else! First hand experience. I've tried it twice. ... Now, these two experiences are way too short to be of any significance, but certainly are more significant than "I saw someone famous using it". It's a whole different thing to see a Formula one car speeding than to actually race the car.

Well let me put it this way

I tried a Manley gold twice. Like you. Both time it last about 10 minutes.
I refrained from posting cause I have a  "second hand" opinion from someone that I respect a lot that swears by it.

Let me put it this way: I just felt I cannot based a solid opinion from some short time experience that I couldn't opposed to an opinion I value from a very serious AE that have a lot more Gold and Platinum on his walls than me.

So in a way yes, I think "second hand" opinion, as long as it comes from someone you know and respect might be more interesting than my personal opinion. At least when it makes me think twice before dissing a product from a company that is as famous as Manley.

Let me put it even clearer: I know Skwaidu, he's a solid AE and mixer. He knows the best professionals in Finland and a great part of Scandinavia. Let's say that I can read the comments he made without doubting the validity of his sources

Hope this help to end an unecessary flame war


malice
Denis Moulin

[ted nightshade]

I've heard of a number of people deciding within a few seconds or minutes that the Gold was not doing what they wanted it to do. Some right here on this thread, just now.

This interests me a lot- since I don't have an extensive mic locker to choose from (understatement), I had to learn how to get the results I needed. This was quite a project and is ongoing after a few years of working with the Gold mics. Placement is critical with any microphone, no less with the Manley. In between placement and the continuously variable pattern knob, and the option of using the -10dB circuit (not an attenuator, a different circuit with a different amount of negative feedback), there are a lot of variables to take into account- you really have to learn how to use this fine tool, which seems to be true of quite a bit of Manley kit.

Over the years I've been to every extreme of frustration and satisfaction with these mics- their high price has tended to emphasize the frustration times a bit. Now that I know them better, and I still have a lot to learn, I tend to get exceptionally gratifying results very often.

I reiterate that the variable pattern control is not something to be overlooked, nor is the -10dB circuit- with a lot of preamps how hard you hit makes a big difference, nice to have the option, plus the two settings have a different tone.

I wonder how many of these out there are really functioning up to spec...

One demanding application that this mic excels at is recording a vocal live along with an accompanying ensemble, all with one or two mics. What a challenge that is!

I'm interested in the Reference Cardioid... comments on that are appreciated.

[jzombie]

hi dave - check your pms, i couldn't find an e-mail address in your profile

dave-G wrote on Tue, 25 May 2004 13:42

Jeff! Just a small off-topic aside: If you are who I think you are, then you may recall me as the engineer last month on a very unusual jazz trio project in that New York studio you work(ed) in--I noticed the past tense in your post.  Did that studio really close down (as I've heard)?  Email me (I think the link in my profile works). As to the Manleys, I'm curious;  I'm under the impression that they're all made with Josephson capsules.  Is that so?   FWIW, The one time I tried one (a Gold Ref), I found it a little bright sounding, and the singer found it a little too bright looking!  Seriously, we hadn't even moved down the line of trial mics before she said "can we try something a little less gaudy?" -dave G(reenberg)

[otek]

ted nightshade wrote on Wed, 26 May 2004 19:17

I'm interested in the Reference Cardioid... comments on that are appreciated.

Ted, I did comment on the cardioid earlier in this thread. I personally like it better for vocals generally, it tends to be a little darker and more solid on any close-miced source.

I have found that whenever I've used the Gold on vocals, the sibilance and other such artifacts seem to get almost overwhelming. The Cardioid has a thicker membrane, I don't know if this is the main reason for its different response.

The Avalon 737 pre and the Manley Cardioid is a combination I have used quite extensively, and they compliment each other well. I wouldn't primarily use this setup for rock or metal, however, as it tends to get a bit mellow.

I recently did metal vocals with a Microtech Gefell UM92.1, which worked a whole lot better for that IMHO.

[Klaus Heyne]

First, an apology:
Skwaidu was not treated right by me, regardless of any issues with rules I set for my forum- I indeed was harsh, bordering on rude, in lecturing him how things work around here. I am sorry and will try to do better in the future.

Regarding the value of first hand accounts, no matter how skillful or amateurish:

I find that citing or quoting other engineers or audio professionals is relieving the poster of any responsibility for the contents of the information he posts. After all, it was someone else who said it or experienced it.

The truly informative posts of firsthand accounts with Manleys in this thread prove my point:
Every poster tried hard to come up with solid information about the product's usefulness, because the poster's name is on the (bottom) line, and he feels personally invested with his thoughts and opinions for the benefit of his colleagues.

I don't mind at all third party citations that are authorized ("Neumann's Uwe Sattler asked me to relate..."), or  citations of a technical nature which may act as starting point for some stimulating (first person) accounts.

But when it comes to experiences with microphones, this is the professional forum where YOU share them yourselves with your colleagues, or ask your colleagues the questions the answers to which will then inform your future decisions.
To illustrate: The experiences of  Bruce Swedien with SM58s on Jacko's Thriller album may be nice trivia, but will remain irrelevant in this forum until and unless Bruce shares the set ups and details here.

Thank you all for caring about this forum! Let's get back to the business it's been doing so well.

[Zoesch]

otek wrote on Thu, 27 May 2004 16:11

I recently did metal vocals with a Microtech Gefell UM92.1, which worked a whole lot better for that IMHO.

Interesting... and sorry for going a tad OT here, but care to comment on this one? It's not the mic I'd go to for most metal vocalists I've worked with... maybe this should be its own thread.