Post by: Klaus Heyne on February 13, 2010, 02:38:54 PM
Watching this video looks to me like a pretty damning indictment of today's microphone manufacturers, and what they seem to fail to offer to the world's cream of vocalists. (Yes, I see ONE mic that was made less than forty years ago, but that exception proves the rule even more.)
Post by: Barry Hufker on February 13, 2010, 03:03:57 PM
Barry
Post by: bigbone on February 13, 2010, 04:13:02 PM
JN
P.S. That's my 1000th post here. I thank you all, I learn a lot, but I didn't learn
to keep my mouth shut.......LOL
Post by: Didier Brest on February 13, 2010, 05:46:37 PM
| Klaus Heyne wrote on Sat, 13 February 2010 20:38 |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Glny4jSciVI&feature=playe r_embedded |
You shoud be happier with this one.
Post by: Tim Campbell on February 13, 2010, 05:49:09 PM
Post by: Eric H. on February 13, 2010, 05:50:00 PM
*Brauner has already imposed its name in lots of big productions in Europe,
*Manley in the US, and other manufacturers like Lucas, Bock, Flea, Wunder, Kantola, *New Telefunken are making alternatives to those grandfathers.
You must also note that the video was shot in the old A&M studios, which would be why they have a large collection of vintage mic used.
Post by: richg on February 13, 2010, 05:50:19 PM
The C12s were beautiful on the various vocalists, but didn't seem like the right choice for the rap (way too much top end);
the C800G sounded like a C12…with sandpaper;
the 251 was only used on Ms. Dion, I think, so not much to compare to, but…it sounded like her
;the U87s had a very unique sound - a distinct midrange presence (the 1kHz bump that I've seen J.J. Blair mention a few times?), combined with a peak(?) in the upper mids that stopped just short of edginess to give just the right amount of vocal cord bite (I would've picked those for the rap…as they often are, from what I've read);
the U47 sounded like a…U47
;but the M49s were what really grabbed me - on all the various female vocalists, in particular, the word that kept coming to mind was: "velvet" - my GOD, what a mic!
Anyway, I realize this isn't exactly on topic, and I'll completely understand if my post is removed, but I was just struck by how all those mics (well, perhaps with the exception of the C800G…) had an overall quality of sound that is not even hinted at by the usual Audio-Technica/Shure/Rode/etc. stuff that I'm usually involved with…overstating the obvious, to be sure, and if I was recording *those* vocalists, a lowly KSM32 or AT4050 would suddenly have a bit of "magic" to it, but still…
…and to veer even further OT: This is the first time I've heard this song (I don't watch TV), and I thought they actually did a really good job. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the few obvious uses of AutoTune actually worked…precisely because there were only a few uses of it amidst (what sounded like) natural, real vocal performances.
Rich
Post by: Mike Cleaver on February 13, 2010, 06:38:12 PM
I understand she carries it with her.
I also hated the fact that "Awfultune" (tm) reared it's ugly head during this performance.
And can someone tell me why all rappers sound the same?
Post by: bigbone on February 13, 2010, 06:44:15 PM
| Mike Cleaver wrote on Sat, 13 February 2010 18:38 |
That is her own personal microphone, modified for her by, I believe, Stephen Paul. I understand she carries it with her. I? |
Are you talking about Celine Dion's microphone ?
JN
Post by: Mike Cleaver on February 13, 2010, 07:08:23 PM
Post by: Oliver Archut on February 13, 2010, 07:32:08 PM
It does not matter if they would sing into tin cans on strings as long the purpose is good.
I think that the studio they used as well as the producer had a lot of influence on what mics we see were used. As far as I read not everything was shoot in the same studio, that might be the reason for the other none grand Fathers.
Celine Dions mic? To the account of Mr. Sandborn (don't know if the spelling is right) she bought a bunch of Telefunken USA 251s...
Best regards,
Post by: bigbone on February 13, 2010, 07:32:45 PM
| Mike Cleaver wrote on Sat, 13 February 2010 19:08 |
Yes. |
That's not what i heard, i will see if i can quote my source...........
JN
Post by: bigbone on February 13, 2010, 07:35:06 PM
| Oliver Archut wrote on Sat, 13 February 2010 19:32 |
Wall of shame? Celine Dions mic? To the account of Mr. Sandborn (don't know if the spelling is right) she bought a bunch of Telefunken USA 251s... Best regards, |
Again, i will see it i can quote my source.....
JN
Post by: Fletcher on February 13, 2010, 09:38:20 PM
Second, who knows what was actually used vs. "used for the video". I tend to never believe video presentations after having worked with a band that did a "making of" video to accompany an album... and had shots with a "prop" mic in a supposed "documentary".
Third, even if the mics were "real", it is obviously one of the big LA shops where they have tons of old mics. Its part of their selling point. From what I've seen there has been more interest in modern microphone manufacture than ever. Just the fact that Bock, Wunder, TELEFUNKEN, Brauner, Horch, Flea, Josephson [etc.] can exist in this day and age is testament to the fact that there is a demand for quality microphones.
As always, I could be wrong.
Peace.
Post by: kats on February 13, 2010, 09:42:18 PM
EDIT:
On a more relative note, I'm mixing an album right now that the vocal was recorded with a cheap Chinese LDC. It has been nothing but a PITA. I cannot eq it. It's a damn shame, the music is absolutely wonderful. There are 2 songs where a decent mic was used and it is like night and day. Moreover, the difficulty in mixing was a night and day experience as well.
In the end, the product sounds good. You make things work. But honest to God, I was extremely limited in my options because a lousy mic was used to originally record the vocal. The record will get accolades for sure, and the joke is people will say "You see, that was recorded with a Studio Projects and it was a hit". What they won't know is what it could have been.
But that pretty much sums up the music biz right now. So much good stuff that could have been great...
Post by: Oliver Archut on February 14, 2010, 01:13:52 AM
The Shockmount looks pretty much like a Neumann one...
Best regards,
Post by: Martin Kantola on February 14, 2010, 10:50:32 AM
But I'm happy they got together for a good cause.
Martin
Post by: Fletcher on February 14, 2010, 11:35:23 AM
Post by: David Bock on February 15, 2010, 12:14:39 AM
I'm not sure I understand your premise clearly. Is it possible for you to re-state it?
thanks,
David
Post by: bigbone on February 15, 2010, 12:27:24 AM
| dbock wrote on Mon, 15 February 2010 00:14 |
Klaus, I'm not sure I understand your premise clearly. Is it possible for you to re-state it? thanks, David |
Reading his post, it looks like all the new mics sound (terrible), and they are not at par
with the old ones....
JN
Post by: Caco on February 15, 2010, 01:30:40 AM
He works with vintage mics and makes a living out of them, so no surprise when he hypes their reputation.
(I take all comers, make the bulk of my income with mics that are currently made, issued a modern, non-vintage, non-copy mic ten years ago, and have never had a desire to market still another copy of an old mic. If you don't understand my comments as a lament about the present, rather than an ode to the past, I failed. K.H.)
The surprise is how he ignores the efforts and even the factory that had his signature mic built. He talks about it as if Brauner only gave him the tools and he made the magic. Brauner, Bock, Tele USA, NU47, DPA etc etc are GREAT microphone makers.
Microphone is a matter of taste like any other instruments and we all know that many other great pieces were made with modern microphones.
B.
Post by: Caco on February 15, 2010, 01:43:48 AM
Post by: J.J. Blair on February 15, 2010, 03:39:19 AM
| Oliver Archut wrote on Sat, 13 February 2010 22:13 |
The 47 seems like either a very well treated 47 or a Neumann refurbish (they still do that). I would be surprised if it would turn out to be a Wunder or Flea, because the dome is all the way right. The Shockmount looks pretty much like a Neumann one... Best regards, |
I was going to say the same thing. The grill being the give away that it's not FLEA.
Post by: kats on February 15, 2010, 08:52:15 AM
Post by: Oliver Archut on February 15, 2010, 10:10:12 AM
Not anymore, that is right about two years ago or so Telefunken started to make their own 47 parts, their headgrill does not have the Milos like domed head, but it does not look identical to Neumann ones either. The top is about 30% higher than original ones.
Best regards,
Post by: Fletcher on February 15, 2010, 12:42:17 PM
| kats wrote on Mon, 15 February 2010 08:52 |
T-USA do not have domed head baskets |
First, Oliver is correct, the baskets do rise a bit more than the original Neumann, but not by much... coupla millimeters at most.
More importantly, the suffix to the company name "l USA" is deader than fried chicken.
The name of the company is now TELEFUNKEN Elektroakustik. Feel free to refer to the company as "New Tele" or "T-Ela" but "T-USA" has been the wrong name for close to a year now.
Thanx for your patience and understading.
Peace.
Post by: Barry Hufker on February 15, 2010, 01:26:51 PM
Barry
Post by: Oliver Archut on February 15, 2010, 01:38:49 PM
Regarding the head grill, it is 30% compared to the Neumann average basket (they varied 1 to 3 mm over the years).
Regards,
Post by: Klaus Heyne on February 15, 2010, 02:38:07 PM
| dbock wrote on Sun, 14 February 2010 21:14 |
Klaus, I'm not sure I understand your premise clearly. Is it possible for you to re-state it? thanks, David |
Gladly.
The video shows today's top popular recording stars at work in several world-class recording studios contributing (not faking) their vocal parts to a song intended to raise money for Haitian earthquake victims.
In the overwhelming majority of the vocals on this recording (and pretty much all other top-shelf vocals sung by top-shelf artists) the mics used are very old. With very few exceptions, that is still the norm today.
The video shows and condenses nicely something that seems like an anachronism in technology: heavy use of devices that are decades old in a technology field where the half-life of gear (think DAWs A-to-D's, storage media, etc, etc.) is rarely longer than two years, if even that long.
Regarding progress in microphones: all of today's larger manufacturers, and most of the boutique shops are concentrating on that old technology. Unless you regard as progress touting the look, technical features, names, and company logos of forty or fifty year-old mics, not to mention ads that keep harping on 'vintage' this and 'vintage' that for their current models.
If manufacturers would admit that nothing better than what was done decades ago can be produced today, and that the old bones cannot be improved upon, that would be one thing I could (for a little while longer) live with. But that is not the case: we get ever more technologically truncated and visually butchered semi-copies of the real thing (have you seen the current copy of the AKG C414EB?) accompanied by brazen advertisements claiming similar performance as the old workhorses. And that I find shameful, because it is deception.
So much for an attempt at an answer to David.
Others excuse the heavy vintage representation in the video with "that's what they happen to have in their studio". But that is not a valid argument, in my opinion. The top-shelf facilities do have the budget to replace gear in that price range at the drop of a hat, if they thought they could improve their microphone closet, image, or reputation.
Furthermore, blaming me as the messenger for the unpleasant message because I may have inferior, selfish motives does not address the issue: why do we still keep recording our most critical material with mics that are many decades old- if we are lucky enough to own them or can afford to purchase them?
Post by: Fletcher on February 15, 2010, 04:32:03 PM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Mon, 15 February 2010 13:26 |
As long as we're discussing the name, it should be Telefunken and not TELEFUNKEN. |
Ya know, I agree with you, but TELEFUNKEN Holdings, GmbH says its supposed to be capitalized and I'm just following orders...
FWIW, I think the 800G, the KHE, and a few others have shown that "old bones can be rivaled" if not beaten.
Point absolutely taken that what we expect from a microphone was defined decades ago and that MOST new product is trying to live up to the ghost of products past in one way or another... but a few have taken a stab at innovation, and I dare say there will be more to follow in their footsteps.
...or at least I hope they will try to innovate, it would be a real shame if people stopped trying in that department.
Peace.
Post by: kats on February 15, 2010, 06:39:01 PM
| Fletcher wrote on Mon, 15 February 2010 11:42 |
The name of the company is now TELEFUNKEN Elektroakustik. Feel free to refer to the company as "New Tele" or "T-Ela" but "T-USA" has been the wrong name for close to a year now. |
What next, are you going to tell me I can't use the word ketchup?
Please: let's get back on track, or start a new thread about microphone naming issues.
Thanks, K.H.
Post by: bigbone on February 15, 2010, 09:16:39 PM
if i like it or not, but that's your forum and i do respect it.
P.S. you are probably edit it, but like i said it's your form, do as you like !!!!
Post by: Caco on February 15, 2010, 09:21:12 PM
| Klaus Heyne wrote on Mon, 15 February 2010 13:38 | ||
Gladly. The video shows today's top popular recording stars at work in several world-class recording studios contributing (not faking) their vocal parts to a song intended to raise money for Haitian earthquake victims. In the overwhelming majority of the vocals on this recording (and pretty much all other top-shelf vocals sung by top-shelf artists) the mics used are very old. With very few exceptions, that is still the norm today. The video shows and condenses nicely something that seems like an anachronism in technology: heavy use of devices that are decades old in a technology field where the half-life of gear (think DAWs A-to-D's, storage media, etc, etc.) is rarely longer than two years, if even that long. Regarding progress in microphones: all of today's larger manufacturers, and most of the boutique shops are concentrating on that old technology. Unless you regard as progress touting the look, technical features, names, and company logos of forty or fifty year-old mics, not to mention ads that keep harping on 'vintage' this and 'vintage' that for their current models. If manufacturers would admit that nothing better than what was done decades ago can be produced today, and that the old bones cannot be improved upon, that would be one thing I could live with. But that is not the case: we get ever more technologically truncated and visually butchered barely-copies of the real thing (have you seen the current copy of the AKG C414EB?) accompanied by brazen advertisements claiming similar performance as the old workhorses. And that I find shameful, because it is deception. So much for an attempt at an answer to David. Others excuse the heavy vintage representation in the video with "that's what they happen to have in their studio". But that is not a valid argument, in my opinion. The top-shelf facilities do have the budget to replace gear in that price range at the drop of a hat, if they thought they could improve their microphone closet, image, or reputation. Furthermore, blaming me as the messenger for the unpleasant message because I may have inferior, selfish motives does not address the issue: why do we still keep recording our most critical material with mics that are many decades old- if we are lucky enough to own them or can afford to purchase them? |
1. There are so many products on planet Earth that the modern versions are still based on old technologies, and that doesn't takes away from their quality.
2. Of course that a well preserved vintage Big-Five mic is a wonderful microphone and all studios must have them.
3. There ain't no such thing as "recording the most critical material with old mics" as there are a broad variety of critical material recorded with modern ones.
4. Doesn't matters if was the studio itself, or the producer's choice, or the artist's choice. Those are great mics and they are in the ball park to major recordings, but then again: that does not takes a milimeter away from so many modern options.
5. Smashing the reputation of some of today's clones is not fair as well. A Flea 49 would get the job done in the place of those 49's. A microphone shall be judged sonically, no matter if it is original, clone, refurbished, expensive, cheap...
6. Manufacturers admit that nothing better can be produced? That is some non-sense stuff. Gilmour recorded an entire album with the C800-G. I've been listening to many people's comments on how some big time artists were amazed with the sound of the Bock 507, Brauner VM1/VMA, Telefunken Elektroakustik's 251, Wunder CM7, Wagner and witnessed many major recordings with modern mikes.
Perhaps the salvation day will be the day that we would have the opportunity to enter the waiting list for the major breakthrough in the mike industry: Klaus Heyne Microphones.
Post by: Glenn Bucci on February 15, 2010, 09:42:26 PM
Post by: Klaus Heyne on February 15, 2010, 09:43:40 PM
| Caco wrote on Mon, 15 February 2010 18:21 |
2. Of course that a well preserved vintage Big-Five mic is a wonderful microphone and all studios must have them. |
You seem to be concurring with the argument I was making.
| Quote: |
A Flea 49 would get the job done in the place of those 49's. A microphone shall be judged sonically, no matter if it is original, clone, refurbished, expensive, cheap... |
If the FLEA microphone is as sonically good or as desirable as a Neumann M49 it tries to emulate, it will be the new standard. It then will be seen and used in the best studios of the world instead of or along their genuine M49s.
But it may not happen, because its capsule alone is not on par with the K49/M7 capsules Neumann made and is making today, and I am sticking my head out in opining that a FLEA M49 copy without that capsule and the Neumann transformer will not even come close.
I somehow get the sense that you may agree with me more if you owned and used both- the original and the copy, in excellent condition.
| Quote: |
Gilmour recorded an entire album with the C800-G. I've been listening to many people's comments on how some big time artists were amazed with the sound of the Bock 507, Brauner VM1/VMA, Telefunken Elektroakustik's 251, Wunder CM7, Wagner |
If you were to work with any of the Big Five for a while, then compare them to their impostors, you may have a different opinion.
Finally, a note about this forum's etiquette: your remark about "Klaus Heyne microphones" seemed sarcastic to me, and out of line with the respectful tone we try to keep here- even when we strongly and passionately disagree with one another. Please try to make your arguments without resorting to personalisation. They will also be stronger that way.
Post by: Klaus Heyne on February 15, 2010, 09:55:23 PM
| bigbone wrote on Mon, 15 February 2010 18:16 |
Klaus..... you run your forum as tight as a vagina nun, and i'm not sure if i like it or not, but that's your forum and i do respect it. P.S. you are probably edit it, but like i said it's your form, do as you like !!!! |
I take what you may have meant as criticism as a compliment -thank you - as long as you guys hold me to the same fire!
(though a bit unclear on the concept of a vagina nun)
Post by: Dominick on February 15, 2010, 11:18:27 PM
Rule #4 "This is show business"
Post by: Caco on February 15, 2010, 11:24:33 PM
And saying that my statement regarding the Big Five mics as necessary items for the big studios was kinda concurring with your point of view was NOT RIGHT. I've written with all the letters that although they are great and necessary ALL THE GREAT MODERN ONES ARE ALSO GREAT AND NECESSARY. One thing doesn't takes away the value of the other.
I also think that there are other microphone experts in the world that are in the same ball park that you are, and again: one thing doesn't takes away the value of the other.
Post by: bigbone on February 15, 2010, 11:43:39 PM
As always, I do hold in respect all the people that I communique with, and try to keep it light.
Microphones are important, but we are not talking here about death or cancer. so. we just have to relax about it.
And about old and new microphones, there will alway a debate.
All the best.
JN
Post by: kats on February 16, 2010, 09:06:48 AM
| Klaus Heyne wrote on Mon, 15 February 2010 20:43 |
work with any of the Big Five for a while, then compare them to their impostors... |
"Impostors" - how brutally perfect!
Post by: Extreme Mixing on February 16, 2010, 01:33:04 PM
Though I do agree with Klaus that there is nothing quite like the real thing when it's in great condition and properly working.
I don't see the Sony C800G as being an inferior microphone at all. What it does, it does really well. It has a sound and a vibe that can be just right.
Steve
Post by: David Bock on February 18, 2010, 12:21:52 AM
If I'm correct, the video was shot at one of the remaining large, established studio here in LA. The singers seemed to be in the same room, with some shots in iso rooms. I wasn't there, so I don't know for fact.
As it stands you statement is not supported by anything but circumstantial evidence.
We don't know, and I haven't asked Ed Cherney what his criteria for selecting mics was that day. Were they in a hurry? Did Ed use stuff he was familiar with? Dis they really even devote much time to the mic selection? Does an established studio like that even have any new mics, or the $$$ for them? Don't know. Might not even matter to them, $$$ might get prioritized elsewhere. It doesn't mean that through careful evaluation and selection of all of the microphone choices possible in the world today, that's what they decided upon, to the exclusion of all else, deliberately, it means that's what happened THAT day,due to circumstance.
If this had happened 60 years ago, the room would have been filled with RCA ribbons. 90 years ago, a turntable with the horn connected to the stylus. In 30 years, who knows. Ed used what he knew, and what was there that day. In 30 years Ed' successor might use something else. Mic selection, like guitars, can very well boil down to comfortable fashion for the engineer and studio (I don't recall Ed having his own mic collection on any sessions at Oceanway). To address what's in Henson's mic locker, well, I'm guessing most of it was bought some years ago. Just because they might not have (again I don't know for fact) any new mics doesn't mean it was a decision of exclusion.
If I were to use the logic of your statement and apply it to a personal example, then all of the old crappy mic cables we used at Oceanway to record all those big commercial releases & hits are good, and all the new mic cables people make now belong on the "wall of shame" as an indictment of their inadequacy at capturing great artists.
In addition to the lack of evidence =for your point (one video, no backround story or research) there are mics made after 1973 (my date threshold) that get used by famous artists (even for vocals) on hit and large commercial release albums, which contradicts your conclusion. I may have even seen a video or two of this.
regards,
David
Post by: bigbone on February 18, 2010, 07:16:01 AM
The vocal was not record that day, it was only a video. so we don't know for
sure what mic was use on vocal.
JN
Post by: Caco on February 18, 2010, 03:39:54 PM
I respect your critical position towards my person and my motives, but do not respect that you continue with your disrespectful tone. I won't continue editing out your slanders and insults (which I removed from this post). As mentioned to you in my PM and edits, you keep violating several of the ground rules of this forum that I laid down in the belief that they help good, friendly and constructive conversation (please read!)
Please, one last time, stick to the subject, refrain from personal insults, and let your arguments carry the debate. If you don't want to do that, please don't post anymore. Thanks, K.H.
....As for the so called Big Five, I personally don't worship all of them. I am a fan of the U47 and the M49, that's it. The M269c is a way better than the U67 and I honestly prefer David Bock's 507 and the Sony C800-G over 98% of all vintage mics I've ever seen. So the old days only produced 2 big-time jewels in my opinion, nowadays we have 2 and much more. Brauner has great mics too ! The Sony is one of the top 3 mics of all time in my opinion.
The C12 is a great mic of course, but not in the same league as the top 3 mics of all time in my opinion:
1. Neumann M49
2. Neumann U47
3. Sony C-800G
Hope somebody understands my point.
Post by: David Bock on February 18, 2010, 04:39:05 PM
Keep in mind I'm criticizing Klaus' idea, not him the person.
regards,
David
Post by: Caco on February 18, 2010, 04:46:23 PM
I am criticizing his ideas as well. Nothing personal. I am not saying his is a bad character or a bad person, just that his ideas and his posture throughout this forum are not really appropriate.
I also didn't like some of the comments regarding the VM1-KHE as it has the same tone that this thread has: basically everything that is made nowadays sucks besides the mikes that he's put his hands on, transforming a modern mic that was not special by any means into a jewel.
Truth be told, Klaus is a great professional and we share the love for the old mics and perhaps this thread looks kinda personal because it deals with our passions and beliefs.
Post by: compasspnt on February 18, 2010, 05:24:48 PM
Yes, he runs a tight ship. But every time he has deleted one of my posts, I have received a PM explaining why.
All of this takes time, and I think most people here really appreciate it.
If you let an Interwebs Forum get out of hand, it is not a pretty sight.
This is not meant to pander to Klaus, nor is it meant to criticize Caco.
We all have different beliefs.
Post by: piedpiper on February 18, 2010, 05:37:12 PM
| Caco wrote on Thu, 18 February 2010 15:46 |
Truth be told, Klaus is a great professional and we share the love for the old mics and perhaps this thread looks kinda personal because it deals with our passions and beliefs. |
This goes both ways in that obviously Klaus' passions are evident in the charge behind his judgements of anything but the classic Neumanns. I can certainly relate to the love of beauty driving somewhat less than completely accurate/appropriate expressions. As much as Klaus aspires to the highest integrity he is no less human than the rest of us.
Not to talk as if you aren't here, Klaus. I think there is an understandable vulnerability in sticking your neck out as you do.
Post by: kats on February 18, 2010, 05:52:38 PM
| Caco wrote on Thu, 18 February 2010 15:46 |
I think perhaps I did not express myself properly. I am criticizing his ideas as well. Nothing personal. I am not saying his is a bad character or a bad person, just that his ideas and his posture throughout this forum are not really appropriate. I also didn't like some of the comments regarding the VM1-KHE as it has the same tone that this thread has: basically everything that is made nowadays sucks besides the mikes that he's put his hands on, transforming a modern mic that was not special by any means into a jewel. Truth be told, Klaus is a great professional and we share the love for the old mics and perhaps this thread looks kinda personal because it deals with our passions and beliefs. |
With all due respect, understand that sometimes there comes a point in one's life whereby you've earned the right through dedication, hard work, and respect from your peers, where you can just say things without been taken to task over every bloody detail.
This doesn't mean you have to agree with him, just respect the opinion and the reputation behind it and move on. Maybe he knows something you don't. Maybe he's dead wrong. It is however, a professional opinion - nothing more, nothing less.
Post by: Eric H. on February 18, 2010, 06:22:45 PM
Klaus, as a moderator, has helped many people, including me, understand what those old mics are through many many posts and info given away. The forum has become an amazing, very unique resource about mics, thanks to him and some other big hitters that post here.
But no one knows everything, so we come here to share opinions and experiences, and that is what forums are about.
We should accept each others' point of view knowing that it has its rightness in its foundation.
One last element is that around the world, vintage mics have the advantage of being known for much longer than new mics, so you'll obviously find more people talking about their experiences about them.
Post by: Eric H. on July 15, 2010, 06:21:10 PM
And great music too :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxZtxzI8V0whttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxZtxzI8V0w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TT9k9qGSy4khttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TT9k9qGSy4k
In use there:
U47, C12, M149, C800, C12VR and lots of pop filters.
Post by: piedpiper on July 15, 2010, 07:26:42 PM
Post by: Eric H. on July 16, 2010, 11:52:32 AM
I was surprised to see the dimension of this project. In the teaser, we see various number of studios worldwide, including a great classy studio in Paris, Guillaume Tell, where I'd love to work.
Post by: Markus Aalto on July 16, 2010, 04:54:33 PM
Michael W. Smith & friends at Ocean Way Nashville:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9RWJCw-M0o
Are those C-12 and U-47 style microphones Peluso made? Looks much like them.
Anyway, that Neumann U-67 sounds really good. There are real U-47 too..
Post by: Markus Aalto on July 17, 2010, 06:05:49 AM
http://www.hensonrecording.com/PDFs/HensonMicrophoneList.pdf
That Sony C800G is not there.
| richg wrote on Sun, 14 February 2010 00:50 |
the C800G sounded like a C12…with sandpaper |
Exactly. Well said.