Fletcher wrote on Sun, 09 January 2011 21:27 |
Why not? I've done several classical piano gigs with LDC mics inside the piano. There are no rules other than "please the client".
|
Yeah, I know pop or jazz engineers do record classical that way, but the "client was happy" factor does not really mean that this is the best possible artistic solution.
Recording classical piano is just completely different aesthetics, where we really want to hear the piano in the hall, rather than stick our heads inside the instrument. I'd love to hear one single major commercial recording done that way!
In fact, from what I remember, besides the marketing issues, one of the reasons for Horowitz' break up with RCA was his displease with their "up-in-the-face" recorded sound, which was mainly due to their close up (note, not even inside the piano) miking.
Speaking of transformer vs. transformerless, usually, in the debates some start bringing points about "phase shift", "saturation", "coloration", etc.
First, do people really know what "phase shift' one could expect from a well designed transformer (let alone, what's the significance of that "phase shift", and in that term what happens to the source signal before it reaches the microphone diaphragm, to start with)? Care to give some numbers... like degree vs. frequency?
Second, anybody cares to give saturation points of a good sized transformer? What are we talking about?
And the last, third, may I suggest, some transformer coupled can be much more neutral than some transformerless. Some transformerless can saturate and distort much earlier than transformer (and BTW, those distortions subjectively are much nastier), etc. etc. etc.
It is not about topology, but all about implementation, design goals, and compromises chosen.
Best, M
P.S. For the record, I do not care if it is a transformer, or transformerless mic. In the end of the day indeed, it is all about "right tool for the right application".