Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Peluso Mics

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 12:07:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Has anybody had the chance to compare Peluso small diaphragm condensers with
Schoeps? The question appeared on another forum and intrigued me -- but
nobody had an answer. I'd never heard of Peluso until a couple of days ago
but now have learned he uses a few select Chinese components to hand
assemble (in the USA) what some claim to be very good mics. The big
question, of course, is HOW good? (Unless they are virtually the equal of
Schoeps, I probably would be uninterested in buying one but still interested
in the answer.)

"Uncle Russ" Reinberg

WESTLAKE PUBLISHING COMPANY
www.finescalerr.com
WESTLAKE RECORDS
www.westlakerecords.com

More about : peluso mics

Anonymous
March 10, 2005 12:40:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Uncle Russ wrote:
>
> Unless they are virtually the equal of Schoeps

*Highly* unlikely.
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 9:10:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Uncle Russ" <uncruss@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:5NGdnTn3Rsi8S7LfRVn-sQ@adelphia.com...
> Has anybody had the chance to compare Peluso small diaphragm condensers
> with Schoeps? The question appeared on another forum and intrigued me --
> but nobody had an answer. I'd never heard of Peluso until a couple of days
> ago but now have learned he uses a few select Chinese components to hand
> assemble (in the USA) what some claim to be very good mics. The big
> question, of course, is HOW good? (Unless they are virtually the equal of
> Schoeps, I probably would be uninterested in buying one but still
> interested in the answer.)

If this link holds together...

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.audio.pro/brows...

.... there's a recent thread on the topic you can check out.

Neil Henderson
Related resources
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 11:41:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Missed that thread the first time, but there still isn't info up there about
the small-diaphragm mics he makes. Has anybody tried them?

--Ben

--
Benjamin Maas
Fifth Circle Audio
Los Angeles, CA
http://www.fifthcircle.com

Please remove "Nospam" from address for replies

"Neil Henderson" <neil.henderson@sbcglobal.netNOSPAM> wrote in message ...
>
>
> If this link holds together...
>
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.audio.pro/brows...
>
> ... there's a recent thread on the topic you can check out.
>
> Neil Henderson
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 2:31:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 01:10:44 -0500, Neil Henderson wrote
(in article <ExRXd.3243$yp.2318@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>):

>
> "Uncle Russ" <uncruss@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:5NGdnTn3Rsi8S7LfRVn-sQ@adelphia.com...
>> Has anybody had the chance to compare Peluso small diaphragm condensers
>> with Schoeps? The question appeared on another forum and intrigued me --
>> but nobody had an answer. I'd never heard of Peluso until a couple of days
>> ago but now have learned he uses a few select Chinese components to hand
>> assemble (in the USA) what some claim to be very good mics. The big
>> question, of course, is HOW good? (Unless they are virtually the equal of
>> Schoeps, I probably would be uninterested in buying one but still
>> interested in the answer.)
>
> If this link holds together...
>
>
http://groups-
beta.google.com/group/rec.audio.pro/browse_frm/thread/e0b844566d
> 3f66b3/2ccb609129ed1d9f?q=peluso+#2ccb609129ed1d9f
>
> ... there's a recent thread on the topic you can check out.
>
> Neil Henderson
>
>

I think I asked about getting a pair to compare with my schoeps, but nothing
ever happened.

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Anonymous
March 12, 2005 8:16:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Hi, Uncle Russ. There is no relationship between Schoeps (whose main
microphone amplifier model is the "CMC 6") and Peluso. And Peluso's Web
site doesn't claim that his "CEMC 6" microphones are based on Schoeps.
However, a dealer on eBay has been making this claim, without evidence
or explanation of any kind.

As far as I can see, the only possible basis for the statement is that
there are several capsule types available for the same microphone
amplifier (body). In other words, it is a modular system, like many
others--not only Schoeps, by far. In fact the switch arrangement for
attenuation and low-frequency cut seems to be copied more from the AKG
C 535EB and C 451B.

To see how easily microphones like this can get onto the U.S. market,
go to www.feilo-usa.com and have a look at the customization services
that they offer. Then go to the mother ship at www.feilo-china.com --
choose "Condenser mic" from the menu on the left, then select the first
microphone in the menu (CR1-14). If you've seen the Peluso microphone,
this one may seem ... oddly familiar.

--best regards
Anonymous
March 13, 2005 5:45:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"David Satz" <DSatz@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1110676580.942056.301220@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Hi, Uncle Russ. There is no relationship between Schoeps (whose main
> microphone amplifier model is the "CMC 6") and Peluso. And Peluso's Web
> site doesn't claim that his "CEMC 6" microphones are based on Schoeps.
> However, a dealer on eBay has been making this claim, without evidence
> or explanation of any kind.

Hey David, what about those MBHO mics that are supposed to be Schoeps-like?
Ever hear any of those? I tried e-mailing a US dealer for them to try & get
some info, but havent heard anything back yet.

Neil Henderson
Anonymous
March 13, 2005 1:02:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Neil Henderson <neil.henderson@sbcglobal.netNOSPAM> wrote:
>"David Satz" <DSatz@msn.com> wrote in message
>> Hi, Uncle Russ. There is no relationship between Schoeps (whose main
>> microphone amplifier model is the "CMC 6") and Peluso. And Peluso's Web
>> site doesn't claim that his "CEMC 6" microphones are based on Schoeps.
>> However, a dealer on eBay has been making this claim, without evidence
>> or explanation of any kind.
>
>Hey David, what about those MBHO mics that are supposed to be Schoeps-like?
>Ever hear any of those? I tried e-mailing a US dealer for them to try & get
>some info, but havent heard anything back yet.

I had some on eval, and they aren't in the same league with the Schoeps/DPA/
Sennheiser MKH/Josephson 606 stuff. But, they also aren't anywhere near as
expensive, which is a big deal with the dollar continuing to drop.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
March 13, 2005 1:41:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Scott, since you have actually evaluated them first-hand, what mic
would you compare the CEMC6 to, and how would you best describe them?
Others please chime in too if you have used these. My use would be for
location recording as a stereo pair.

I appreciate any & all thoughts/opinions...

best,
Keith

/lurk mode back on/
Anonymous
March 13, 2005 1:45:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Scott, since you have actually evaluated them first-hand, what mic
would you compare the CEMC6 to, and how would you best describe them?
Others please chime in too if you have used these. My use would be for
location recording as a stereo pair.

I appreciate any & all thoughts/opinions...

best,
Keith

/lurk mode back on/
Anonymous
March 13, 2005 2:32:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <EPNYd.8865$yp.2110@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com> neil.henderson@sbcglobal.netNOSPAM writes:

> Hey David, what about those MBHO mics that are supposed to be Schoeps-like?

Schoeps-like, Neumann-like, AKG/Telefunken-like . . none of them are
the real thing, most are pretty good. I wouldn't buy a mic because
it's supposed to (or even does) sound like or be built like a mic
that's supposed to be really good. I'd buy a mic because it does
something I need. This is why I have U87s (at one time this was
something that separated me from other home studios), and why I have
SM57s.

MBHO has some decent mics, but the reason to buy them is that they're
MBHO, not that that they're Schoeps-like.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
March 13, 2005 5:04:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I have a modified AT4051 cardioid that sounds fairly close to my
Schoeps, but like you say, "close" doesn't mean it's the same. Still,
for the price the AT is a nice mic.

Al

On 13 Mar 2005 11:32:02 -0500, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

>
>In article <EPNYd.8865$yp.2110@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com> neil.henderson@sbcglobal.netNOSPAM writes:
>
>> Hey David, what about those MBHO mics that are supposed to be Schoeps-like?
>
>Schoeps-like, Neumann-like, AKG/Telefunken-like . . none of them are
>the real thing, most are pretty good. I wouldn't buy a mic because
>it's supposed to (or even does) sound like or be built like a mic
>that's supposed to be really good. I'd buy a mic because it does
>something I need. This is why I have U87s (at one time this was
>something that separated me from other home studios), and why I have
>SM57s.
>
>MBHO has some decent mics, but the reason to buy them is that they're
>MBHO, not that that they're Schoeps-like.
Anonymous
March 13, 2005 8:59:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1110713763k@trad...
>
> In article <EPNYd.8865$yp.2110@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>
> neil.henderson@sbcglobal.netNOSPAM writes:
>
>> Hey David, what about those MBHO mics that are supposed to be
>> Schoeps-like?
>
> Schoeps-like, Neumann-like, AKG/Telefunken-like . . none of them are
> the real thing, most are pretty good. I wouldn't buy a mic because
> it's supposed to (or even does) sound like or be built like a mic
> that's supposed to be really good. I'd buy a mic because it does
> something I need. This is why I have U87s (at one time this was
> something that separated me from other home studios), and why I have
> SM57s.
>
> MBHO has some decent mics, but the reason to buy them is that they're
> MBHO, not that that they're Schoeps-like.

Point taken, but how's the build quality, sound quality, & self-noise of the
MBHO's, in your opinion?

Neil Henderson
Anonymous
March 13, 2005 8:59:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <hc%Yd.17332$YD4.14753@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com> neil.henderson@sbcglobal.netNOSPAM writes:

> Point taken, but how's the build quality, sound quality, & self-noise of the
> MBHO's, in your opinion?

All decent as far as I can tell, but I've never used one long enough
to decide that it's not useful. And I've never used one longe enough
to decide that it IS useful. I've seen the insides and they look as
good as any decent microphone.

Why dont' you get one and try it on what you'd like to use it on? Any
dealer who won't let you return it for a refund if you don't decide to
keep it isn't worth dealing with. And don't worry about an A/B
comparision. As yourself "Can I use this mic?"


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 11:46:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Roger W. Norman wrote:
>
> Besides, what great American microphone is available today?

Josephson, AEA, and Royer come to mind immediately. My microphone
purchasing dollars are headed thusly for awhile.
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 1:27:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Plus, by EQ or Mix this month, they are American made, which means they
aren't Shanghai mics. Peluso mics are definitely Chinese, but from what
I've heard, they are quite superior to those of the run of the mill Chinese
mics. I'm tempted to call John and ask for a pair for evaluation. Do Mike
or Scott want to help on the evaluation?

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:D 11klq$q6o$1@panix2.panix.com...
> Neil Henderson <neil.henderson@sbcglobal.netNOSPAM> wrote:
> >"David Satz" <DSatz@msn.com> wrote in message
> >> Hi, Uncle Russ. There is no relationship between Schoeps (whose main
> >> microphone amplifier model is the "CMC 6") and Peluso. And Peluso's Web
> >> site doesn't claim that his "CEMC 6" microphones are based on Schoeps.
> >> However, a dealer on eBay has been making this claim, without evidence
> >> or explanation of any kind.
> >
> >Hey David, what about those MBHO mics that are supposed to be
Schoeps-like?
> >Ever hear any of those? I tried e-mailing a US dealer for them to try &
get
> >some info, but havent heard anything back yet.
>
> I had some on eval, and they aren't in the same league with the
Schoeps/DPA/
> Sennheiser MKH/Josephson 606 stuff. But, they also aren't anywhere near
as
> expensive, which is a big deal with the dollar continuing to drop.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 1:35:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

And that dropping dollar means something. Milk costs $3 plus dollars for a
gallon. That's more than gas, and it only takes someone with the knowledge
to pull teets.

And while I'm at it, keep those tuna dollars in your pocket. You're buying
mercury. Get salmon or catfish. But by all means, spend the money on
purified or distilled water. Your children will thank you for it because
THEY CAN. This administration wants you to have more mercury in your system
so your brains can't develop any further. Then you can elect more
republicans so they can keep the mercury in the water. The studies don't
lie. Predator fish have high levels of mercury because they eat lots of
fish with lower levels and it's stored in fatty tissue. Eat fish often but
not predatory fish. Trout, salmon and other non-predatory fish have as
little as 1/10th of the total mercury in tuna. Heavy metals kill brain
cells. Fish is good for the brain. Doesn't make sense, does it?

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:D 11klq$q6o$1@panix2.panix.com...
> Neil Henderson <neil.henderson@sbcglobal.netNOSPAM> wrote:
> >"David Satz" <DSatz@msn.com> wrote in message
> >> Hi, Uncle Russ. There is no relationship between Schoeps (whose main
> >> microphone amplifier model is the "CMC 6") and Peluso. And Peluso's Web
> >> site doesn't claim that his "CEMC 6" microphones are based on Schoeps.
> >> However, a dealer on eBay has been making this claim, without evidence
> >> or explanation of any kind.
> >
> >Hey David, what about those MBHO mics that are supposed to be
Schoeps-like?
> >Ever hear any of those? I tried e-mailing a US dealer for them to try &
get
> >some info, but havent heard anything back yet.
>
> I had some on eval, and they aren't in the same league with the
Schoeps/DPA/
> Sennheiser MKH/Josephson 606 stuff. But, they also aren't anywhere near
as
> expensive, which is a big deal with the dollar continuing to drop.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 1:42:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

But what cost is "modified"? Once you lay in that sunk cost you have to
then compare the total to the cost of a Josephson or Schoeps or even the
MBHO. Plus the time to get the AT modified. And why buy a mic and modify
it unless it's far less expensive to get the sound of a more expensive mic.

I agree with Mike. Buy what you buy because it does something you want it
to and leave it at that. No use in making comparisons. If you need the
sound of a Neumann, then buy one.

BTW, Mike and Scott's mic cabinets are pretty impressive. But I see some
reasoning going on in their minds to go for some of the less expensive mics
simply because a single purpose mic that's $100 is far more cost effective
than a $3k mic that does 3 things well.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/

"play on" <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:n3e931p7q41r03p7e5qs5pt75869bdr76c@4ax.com...
> I have a modified AT4051 cardioid that sounds fairly close to my
> Schoeps, but like you say, "close" doesn't mean it's the same. Still,
> for the price the AT is a nice mic.
>
> Al
>
> On 13 Mar 2005 11:32:02 -0500, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers)
> wrote:
>
> >
> >In article <EPNYd.8865$yp.2110@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>
neil.henderson@sbcglobal.netNOSPAM writes:
> >
> >> Hey David, what about those MBHO mics that are supposed to be
Schoeps-like?
> >
> >Schoeps-like, Neumann-like, AKG/Telefunken-like . . none of them are
> >the real thing, most are pretty good. I wouldn't buy a mic because
> >it's supposed to (or even does) sound like or be built like a mic
> >that's supposed to be really good. I'd buy a mic because it does
> >something I need. This is why I have U87s (at one time this was
> >something that separated me from other home studios), and why I have
> >SM57s.
> >
> >MBHO has some decent mics, but the reason to buy them is that they're
> >MBHO, not that that they're Schoeps-like.
>
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 2:51:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Which was really the point. All multiples of $1k. Out of the reach of most
project/home studios unless someone has more money then sense. Although
didn't I see a Josephson mic at a sub $1k price in EQ from NAMM?

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/

"Kurt Albershardt" <kurt@nv.net> wrote in message
news:39n7ltF5vn0lpU1@individual.net...
> Roger W. Norman wrote:
> >
> > Besides, what great American microphone is available today?
>
> Josephson, AEA, and Royer come to mind immediately. My microphone
> purchasing dollars are headed thusly for awhile.
>
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 4:01:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"David Satz" <DSatz@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1110820102.768706.144560@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

> I've never tried the microphones themselves and I don't know anyone who
> uses them, but now and then a favorable comment about MBHO as a budget
> alternative is posted on one of the German-language boards which I
> follow. I certainly wouldn't rule out trying a pair of their mikes,
> though if I had the budget for that sort of taste-testing, personally
> there are a few other companies whose products I'd try first (e.g.
> Josephson).
>
> One thing to consider is that not very many years ago, several of the
> dealers active on eBay were big-time gray marketers, and their source
> of supply was cut off. So they have resentments against Neumann and
> Schoeps, and they enjoy posting auctions and statements which they know
> will irritate the people at those companies. It is an immature little
> game that the public is not let in on.


Yeah, but that stuff doesn't bother me... I have nothing against Neumann
mics - I own a couple, have used tons of 'em apart from that, and was in
fact pondering a pair of -184's, since I am looking for a pair of cardioid
SDC's; and I've used the 184's and like 'em just fine. However, with the
dollar getting it's ass kicked against several currencies, the new German
stuff seems to be climbing in price, so I am also considering lower-priced
alternatives... with the Josephson's you mentioned being one of those
alternatives. My only concern there is self-noise... there've been a number
of posts on this NG mentioning that aspect of the C-42's, and I almost
grabbed a pair not too long ago, thinking: "I'm mainly going to use these
for drum overheads in a rock context, so a couple of db's worth of noise
isn't going to be an issue", but now it looks like I'll be doing some more
classically-oriented stuff as well, so self-noise is now a bigger concern. I
was curious as to how the MBHO's stack up in that department (as well as
overall sound quality, of course). I suppose I may have to just try 'em &
see.

Neil Henderson
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 6:43:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Roger W. Norman wrote:
> And that dropping dollar means something. Milk costs $3 plus dollars for a
> gallon. That's more than gas, and it only takes someone with the knowledge
> to pull teets.
>
> And while I'm at it, keep those tuna dollars in your pocket. You're buying
> mercury. Get salmon or catfish. But by all means, spend the money on
> purified or distilled water. Your children will thank you for it because
> THEY CAN. This administration wants you to have more mercury in your system
> so your brains can't develop any further. Then you can elect more
> republicans so they can keep the mercury in the water. The studies don't
> lie. Predator fish have high levels of mercury because they eat lots of
> fish with lower levels and it's stored in fatty tissue. Eat fish often but
> not predatory fish. Trout, salmon and other non-predatory fish have as
> little as 1/10th of the total mercury in tuna. Heavy metals kill brain
> cells. Fish is good for the brain. Doesn't make sense, does it?
>

Why BEER is good for your brain,

"Well ya see, Norm, it's like this. A herd of buffalo can only move
as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the
slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This
natural
selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed
and
health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the
weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain can only operate
as
fast as the slowest brain cells. Excessive intake of alcohol, as we
know,
kill brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest
brain
cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the
weaker
brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine!
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 6:43:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Well I'm not sure how to address that, George, except to say if you see a
stampeding group of brain cells running from some alcohol molecules then you
probably should see a doctor! <g>

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/

"George Gleason" <g.p.gleason@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:iRsZd.389727$w62.108054@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Roger W. Norman wrote:
> > And that dropping dollar means something. Milk costs $3 plus dollars
for a
> > gallon. That's more than gas, and it only takes someone with the
knowledge
> > to pull teets.
> >
> > And while I'm at it, keep those tuna dollars in your pocket. You're
buying
> > mercury. Get salmon or catfish. But by all means, spend the money on
> > purified or distilled water. Your children will thank you for it
because
> > THEY CAN. This administration wants you to have more mercury in your
system
> > so your brains can't develop any further. Then you can elect more
> > republicans so they can keep the mercury in the water. The studies
don't
> > lie. Predator fish have high levels of mercury because they eat lots of
> > fish with lower levels and it's stored in fatty tissue. Eat fish often
but
> > not predatory fish. Trout, salmon and other non-predatory fish have as
> > little as 1/10th of the total mercury in tuna. Heavy metals kill brain
> > cells. Fish is good for the brain. Doesn't make sense, does it?
> >
>
> Why BEER is good for your brain,
>
> "Well ya see, Norm, it's like this. A herd of buffalo can only move
> as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the
> slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This
> natural
> selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed
> and
> health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the
> weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain can only operate
> as
> fast as the slowest brain cells. Excessive intake of alcohol, as we
> know,
> kill brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest
> brain
> cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the
> weaker
> brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine!
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 7:03:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Roger W. Norman wrote:
> Well I'm not sure how to address that, George, except to say if you see a
> stampeding group of brain cells running from some alcohol molecules then you
> probably should see a doctor! <g>
>

mine are drawn to single malt like a moth to a flame
only my wallet acts as a barrier
g
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 7:03:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

And that's the reason there's Rolling Rock beer! <g>

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/

"George Gleason" <g.p.gleason@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:o 8tZd.389819$w62.138498@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Roger W. Norman wrote:
> > Well I'm not sure how to address that, George, except to say if you see
a
> > stampeding group of brain cells running from some alcohol molecules then
you
> > probably should see a doctor! <g>
> >
>
> mine are drawn to single malt like a moth to a flame
> only my wallet acts as a barrier
> g
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 7:03:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

And you know something George? That's probably the most coherent statement
you've made on RAP, even though a lot of your posts have been excellent.
The mental picture needs no further explanation.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/

"George Gleason" <g.p.gleason@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:o 8tZd.389819$w62.138498@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Roger W. Norman wrote:
> > Well I'm not sure how to address that, George, except to say if you see
a
> > stampeding group of brain cells running from some alcohol molecules then
you
> > probably should see a doctor! <g>
> >
>
> mine are drawn to single malt like a moth to a flame
> only my wallet acts as a barrier
> g
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 7:52:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Roger W. Norman wrote:
> And that's the reason there's Rolling Rock beer! <g>
>

Rog,
I want to get drunk
not spend all night pissing out the fire!
George
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 8:00:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 23:49:34 -0500, "Roger W. Norman"
<rnorman@starpower.net> wrote:

>The mental picture needs no further explanation.

"Time to pee on the dog and put out the fire."
"I miss Old Yeller." -Riders in the Sky

Isn't it almost time for a beer OT thread?

"You can't buy beer; you can only rent it" - Archie Bunker



Chris Hornbeck
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 8:03:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Roger W. Norman wrote:

> But what cost is "modified"? Once you lay in that sunk cost you have to
> then compare the total to the cost of a Josephson or Schoeps or even the
> MBHO. Plus the time to get the AT modified. And why buy a mic and modify
> it unless it's far less expensive to get the sound of a more expensive mic.

Kurt A's Audio Upgraded C460's are a good example of great value for
money, great enough to say "screw the time it took". The do compare
nicely with my CMC6's + MK4's, and for around $400 all-in (except for
postage <g>).

--
ha
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 8:03:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I can see buying some nice beyer ribbons and having Mr. Sank work on them,
too. It still fits within what I said. Unless you buy a mic with the idea
of modifying it, you didn't by the right mic. That said, there's nothing
wrong with changing your determination of what's right and wrong.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/

"hank alrich" <walkinay@thegrid.net> wrote in message
news:1gtfm7j.16xgnas1fssv5pN%walkinay@thegrid.net...
> Roger W. Norman wrote:
>
> > But what cost is "modified"? Once you lay in that sunk cost you have to
> > then compare the total to the cost of a Josephson or Schoeps or even the
> > MBHO. Plus the time to get the AT modified. And why buy a mic and
modify
> > it unless it's far less expensive to get the sound of a more expensive
mic.
>
> Kurt A's Audio Upgraded C460's are a good example of great value for
> money, great enough to say "screw the time it took". The do compare
> nicely with my CMC6's + MK4's, and for around $400 all-in (except for
> postage <g>).
>
> --
> ha
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 8:13:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 05:00:56 GMT, Chris Hornbeck
<chrishornbeckremovethis@att.net> wrote:

>"Time to pee on the dog and put out the fire."
>"I miss Old Yeller." -Riders in the Sky

I've just remembered the correct quote, and don't want to
print it. Yeah, it's funnier *in context*.

Chris Hornbeck
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 8:13:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

George already referenced it! <g>

Geez, some of you guys stay up late.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/

"Chris Hornbeck" <chrishornbeckremovethis@att.net> wrote in message
news:2hrc311cas12v6voa9c8l3dd3405v2bg2a@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 05:00:56 GMT, Chris Hornbeck
> <chrishornbeckremovethis@att.net> wrote:
>
> >"Time to pee on the dog and put out the fire."
> >"I miss Old Yeller." -Riders in the Sky
>
> I've just remembered the correct quote, and don't want to
> print it. Yeah, it's funnier *in context*.
>
> Chris Hornbeck
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 8:13:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Roger W. Norman wrote:
>
> Geez, some of you guys stay up late.


Quite a few of us are three hours behind you. It's only 10:00 PM here.
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 8:58:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

not a mention of earthworks....
I notice that mr dorsey has a dislike of them
and I wonder what that is???
how does everyone here rate them?

dale
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 9:04:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 00:47:08 -0500, "Roger W. Norman"
<rnorman@starpower.net> wrote:

>Geez, some of you guys stay up late.

Well, I'm in CST, and back to a real day job (yeah! I
love working) and up at 6 AM, but I really miss the late-
night repartee. Late nights are our only true vestige
of childhood. (Whaaaa???? TF?? )

Chris Hornbeck
"That's where may forebears came from. Three of them
anyway. Who's been sleeping in my porridge?"
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 9:04:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

My point wasn't what time it was, but rather that there's significant
posting here during the latter part of the evening. Being on the right
coast Will and I were basically arguing in somewhat real time. In order to
talk to the others here I have to be up at 1:25 AM. Now the way it works, I
usually am getting up about 1 to 2 AM and going to bed about 8 to 9 PM.
Today is different. I woke up at 2 AM and am still awake 24 hours later.
So I'm seeing direct responses from people that usually take two days to do.

Kurt sends me emails during my middle of the night. I answer him in his
way too early morning.

Different, that's all.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/

"Chris Hornbeck" <chrishornbeckremovethis@att.net> wrote in message
news:2rtc31hjduc6i8tteu2ieqeec8d2bfbh7r@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 00:47:08 -0500, "Roger W. Norman"
> <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote:
>
> >Geez, some of you guys stay up late.
>
> Well, I'm in CST, and back to a real day job (yeah! I
> love working) and up at 6 AM, but I really miss the late-
> night repartee. Late nights are our only true vestige
> of childhood. (Whaaaa???? TF?? )
>
> Chris Hornbeck
> "That's where may forebears came from. Three of them
> anyway. Who's been sleeping in my porridge?"
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 10:15:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <ltqZd.12340$WK2.1328@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com> neil.henderson@sbcglobal.netNOSPAM writes:

> stuff seems to be climbing in price, so I am also considering lower-priced
> alternatives... with the Josephson's you mentioned being one of those
> alternatives. My only concern there is self-noise...

People have been recording with microphones for 75 years without being
concerned with self noise. Why all the fuss all of suddden? I hear
this a lot lately. Have microphones become noisier, or are people just
getting carried away with what they hear when the mic's on and no
music is playing? Ever hear of pulling down a fader?


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 12:02:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Kurt Albershardt <kurt@nv.net> wrote:
>Roger W. Norman wrote:
>>
>> Besides, what great American microphone is available today?
>
>Josephson, AEA, and Royer come to mind immediately. My microphone
>purchasing dollars are headed thusly for awhile.

With any luck, many European dollars will be headed that way too. But
don't forget that Shure and EV are still making some models in the US.
Not as many as they used to, though, but still a few.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 12:14:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <znr1110851759k@trad>, Mike Rivers <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>In article <ltqZd.12340$WK2.1328@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com> neil.henderson@sbcglobal.netNOSPAM writes:
>
>> stuff seems to be climbing in price, so I am also considering lower-priced
>> alternatives... with the Josephson's you mentioned being one of those
>> alternatives. My only concern there is self-noise...
>
>People have been recording with microphones for 75 years without being
>concerned with self noise. Why all the fuss all of suddden? I hear
>this a lot lately. Have microphones become noisier, or are people just
>getting carried away with what they hear when the mic's on and no
>music is playing? Ever hear of pulling down a fader?

And, while the Josephson is clearly noisier than the Senneheiser MKH-20,
it's certainly quieter than most of the alternatives at its price point.

Perhaps some people are getting confused because the Josephson data sheet
actually lists the noise levels accurately according to the actual IEC
standard, rather than listing some made-up numbers like most of the
manufacturer data sheets do today.

I'll tell you, I had a Chinese mike in for evaluation once that measured
nearly 20 dB higher than the number on the data sheet. When I asked the
manufacturer, I was basically told that they took all the numbers from
the company whose microphone they copied and that if the numbers were good
enough for the original company, they were good enough for them.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 12:19:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

dale <dallen@frognet.net> wrote:
>not a mention of earthworks....
>I notice that mr dorsey has a dislike of them
>and I wonder what that is???

I don't have a terrible dislike of them. But they are basically a small
measurement-style microphone built with the same inexpensive electret capsule
that dozens of other similar microphones use. And those other microphones
mostly cost less.

>how does everyone here rate them?

They work well, but mostly the point of them is that it's easy and cheap to
make a good omni capsule. There was a huge buzz when they were new, because
people who had never used a good omni tried them and were absolutely blown
away with how solid the low end was and how great the off-axis response was.
But, these are things that are equally fine with any other good omni.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 1:59:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 07:15:17 -0500, Mike Rivers wrote
(in article <znr1110851759k@trad>):

>
> In article <ltqZd.12340$WK2.1328@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>
> neil.henderson@sbcglobal.netNOSPAM writes:
>
>> stuff seems to be climbing in price, so I am also considering lower-priced
>> alternatives... with the Josephson's you mentioned being one of those
>> alternatives. My only concern there is self-noise...
>
> People have been recording with microphones for 75 years without being
> concerned with self noise. Why all the fuss all of suddden? I hear
> this a lot lately. Have microphones become noisier, or are people just
> getting carried away with what they hear when the mic's on and no
> music is playing? Ever hear of pulling down a fader?

It's not all of a sudden. It's happened specifically as a result of the added
dynamic range (read lack of system noise and analog tape hiss) that we now
have with digital systems.

Pulling down a fader while recording can be the wrong thing to do. Pulling
down a fader(s) while mixing is OK, but if you can capture the sound without
the noise, so much the better.

This is more of a problem now because we compress and limit ALMOST EVERYTHING
AND THE USE OF GAIN REDUCTION PUSHES THE NOISE FLOOR UP A LOT FURTHER AND
MAKES IT A LOT MORE OBVIOUS.

so there.

Regards,

Ty Ford

PS: I'm a proponent of low selfnoise. It really helps the impact of sound to
go from starkly quiet to BANG! It also helps with the recording of quieter
musical instruments.



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 1:59:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Ty Ford wrote:


> It's not all of a sudden. It's happened specifically as a result of the added
> dynamic range (read lack of system noise and analog tape hiss) that we now
> have with digital systems.

If there ws already noise in the system, adding even more noise would be ok?


> This is more of a problem now because we compress and limit ALMOST EVERYTHING
> AND THE USE OF GAIN REDUCTION PUSHES THE NOISE FLOOR UP A LOT FURTHER AND
> MAKES IT A LOT MORE OBVIOUS.

This seems totally contradictory to the first statement, even though
true. (Added dynamic range {but} compress and limit everything)


But all this really shows is that microphone noise is not the problem.
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 4:11:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers wrote:
> In article <ltqZd.12340$WK2.1328@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com> neil.henderson@sbcglobal.netNOSPAM writes:
>
>
>>stuff seems to be climbing in price, so I am also considering lower-priced
>>alternatives... with the Josephson's you mentioned being one of those
>>alternatives. My only concern there is self-noise...
>
>
> People have been recording with microphones for 75 years without being
> concerned with self noise. Why all the fuss all of suddden? I hear
> this a lot lately. Have microphones become noisier, or are people just
> getting carried away with what they hear when the mic's on and no
> music is playing? Ever hear of pulling down a fader?
>
>there is quite a bit of difference between what you could hear on a wax
cylinder compared to what you can hear in a 192K recording
the playback has gotten better which demanded the input become better
george
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 4:16:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1110851759k@trad...
>
> In article <ltqZd.12340$WK2.1328@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>
> neil.henderson@sbcglobal.netNOSPAM writes:
>
>> stuff seems to be climbing in price, so I am also considering
>> lower-priced
>> alternatives... with the Josephson's you mentioned being one of those
>> alternatives. My only concern there is self-noise...
>
> People have been recording with microphones for 75 years without being
> concerned with self noise. Why all the fuss all of suddden? I hear
> this a lot lately. Have microphones become noisier, or are people just
> getting carried away with what they hear when the mic's on and no
> music is playing? Ever hear of pulling down a fader?

Hey, just trying to get the best quality possible for the money - you got a
problem wit' 'dat? :) 

Neil Henderson
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 4:16:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Neil Henderson <neil.henderson@sbcglobal.netNOSPAM> wrote:
>
>Hey, just trying to get the best quality possible for the money - you got a
>problem wit' 'dat? :) 

Only when people get obsessed with noise at the expense of tonal quality
and imaging.

A quiet mike that sounds bad is still a mike that sounds bad.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 4:41:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <Q5WdnT5LkqMryKvfRVn-ug@rcn.net> rnorman@starpower.net writes:

> Peluso mics are definitely Chinese, but from what
> I've heard, they are quite superior to those of the run of the mill Chinese
> mics. I'm tempted to call John and ask for a pair for evaluation. Do Mike
> or Scott want to help on the evaluation?

Peluso is near the VA/NC border, about 3 hours down I-81 from here.

ROAD TRIP ! ! ! ! ! ! !

We can pick through his trash and see if we find any Chinese mailing
labels.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 4:41:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <z_KdnUqcV7EmyqvfRVn-gA@rcn.net> rnorman@starpower.net writes:

> And that dropping dollar means something. Milk costs $3 plus dollars for a
> gallon. That's more than gas, and it only takes someone with the knowledge
> to pull teets.

But how much does it cost to maintain the cow? It's easier to clean up
a microphone workshop.

> And while I'm at it, keep those tuna dollars in your pocket. You're buying
> mercury. Get salmon or catfish.

Wild Alaskan salmon is still OK, but farm raised (and I think all the
catfish you can buy in a market is farm raised) have mercury because
it's in the ground where they did the ponds.

What does this have to do with microphones anyway?

--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 6:22:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers wrote:

> People have been recording with microphones for 75 years without being
> concerned with self noise. Why all the fuss all of suddden? I hear
> this a lot lately. Have microphones become noisier, or are people just
> getting carried away with what they hear when the mic's on and no
> music is playing? Ever hear of pulling down a fader?

It's the stupid "according to the spec sheet it sounds like..." baloney.
Nevermind that giving all the mics to _one_ testing facility using _one
documented_ method of testing might give numbers remarkably different
than those provided by the manufacturers of the mics.

"Oh, we use 'M' weighting."

--
ha
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 6:22:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Neil Henderson wrote:

> Hey, just trying to get the best quality possible for the money - you got a
> problem wit' 'dat? :) 

That's why spec sheets are so important. We can trust them...

<bg>

I wonder if poeple complaining about C42's are actually recording
anything with them. Amazing sometimes what an actual source can do to
apparent system noise.

--
ha
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 6:22:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Roger W. Norman wrote:

> Besides, what great American
> microphone is available today?

www.josephson.com


--
ha
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 6:22:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid.net> wrote:
>
>It's the stupid "according to the spec sheet it sounds like..." baloney.
>Nevermind that giving all the mics to _one_ testing facility using _one
>documented_ method of testing might give numbers remarkably different
>than those provided by the manufacturers of the mics.

I was at one of the AES microphone standards committee meetings, where a
bunch of representatives from various quality microphone manufacturers sat
around debating how to actually measure noise. There are actually a couple
IEC standards, and manufacturers basically pick a variant of one of them that
make their microphones look good. Just getting everyone to agree on a single
method would be a big deal.

Not to mention some of the lower grade manufacturers which play tricks like
selecting the quietest mike out of a given production run and putting that
number on the data sheet. The noise floor number on the data sheet should
not be even a nominal average, but it should be the highest possible level
that the manufacturer accepts to ship a product.

>"Oh, we use 'M' weighting."

That's the great thing about standards. If you don't like one, just pick
another one!
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
!