Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Industry Standard for Mics

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 8:24:20 PM

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

What do you consider as an industry standard as far as having mics. For
example, SM81's, SM58 Nueuman U87 come to mind. What would you have in
your arsenal and for which applications? What do you consider a "must
have or a should have" for your studio?


Stan

More about : industry standard mics

Anonymous
May 5, 2005 9:03:51 PM

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

Hi, Stan:

Marshall Crenshaw, one of my songwriting/home recording heroes, once
called the Shure SM57 "the greatest microphone ever made."

While "the greatest microphone" is clearly a matter of opinion, it's
hard to come up with another microphone that can do so many different
things as well as the SM57 can.

Every studio, no matter how large or small, should have at least a few
of these mics on hand. They are simply one of the best all-around mics
one can use.
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 1:43:16 AM

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

skingf...@yahoo.com wrote:

> What do you consider as an industry standard as far as having mics.
For
> example, SM81's, SM58 Nueuman U87 come to mind. What would you have
in
> your arsenal and for which applications? What do you consider a "must
> have or a should have" for your studio?

The U87 seems to be somewhat of a standard
but as long as you have a 'fire-hydrant'
looking main vocal mic for visual appeal
you might get away with one of the better
quality clones.

How about the AKG C414 in any of it's versions ?

After using a Royer ribbon (121?) at a well equiped
studio earlier this week, I'm now looking to add
a ribbon to my list. Really made that cowbell,
tambourine and harmonica sound great ;->

Should Haves:
Main vocal mic, (U87,TLM103/193,etc)
decent SD pair (C480,AT4051,NT5)
enough drum mics to go around a set (57,421)
big dynamic (RE20,SM7)

rd
Related resources
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 3:29:04 AM

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

On 5/5/05 7:24 PM, in article
1115335459.999824.41340@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com, "skingfong@yahoo.com"
<skingfong@yahoo.com> wrote:

> What do you consider as an industry standard as far as having mics. For
> example, SM81's, SM58 Nueuman U87 come to mind. What would you have in
> your arsenal and for which applications? What do you consider a "must
> have or a should have" for your studio?
>
>
> Stan
>
2 of everything
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 4:02:48 AM

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

On Thu, 05 May 2005 16:24:20 -0700, skingfong wrote:

> What do you consider as an industry standard as far as having mics. For
> example, SM81's, SM58 Nueuman U87 come to mind. What would you have in
> your arsenal and for which applications? What do you consider a "must have
> or a should have" for your studio?

If you're starting from scratch (and budget is a consideration - which
your question implies), these would be my picks in order:

Two SM57s

a 635a (or if money's really tight, maybe get this before the second SM57.

Two of the very best small condensers you can afford. (If that's not at
least something like NT5s or Sound Room Octavas, it's probably best to get
them one a a time.)

A reasonably neutral large condenser (like maybe an AT4050, KSM44, ,
TLM193, or U89 - is anybody else even making such a beast anymore?).
(Again, if money's tight you could slip this down a few steps.)

an ND/468.

a big dynamic (RE20, MD421, or SM7).

another ND/468 (or maybe a couple more 57s).

After that, it's play time. If you've got these, you won't encounter many
situations you can't handle. If you do, the mics won't be the limiting
factor.
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 4:06:16 AM

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

"SSJVCmag" <ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com> wrote in message
news:BEA0247F.7454%ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com...
> On 5/5/05 7:24 PM, in article
> 1115335459.999824.41340@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com,
"skingfong@yahoo.com"
> <skingfong@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > What do you consider as an industry standard as far as having mics. For
> > example, SM81's, SM58 Nueuman U87 come to mind. What would you have in
> > your arsenal and for which applications? What do you consider a "must
> > have or a should have" for your studio?
> >
> >
> > Stan
> >
> 2 of everything
>
And three of the ones you like.

--
Dave Martin
DMA, Inc
Nashville, TN
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 6:12:18 AM

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

EADGBE wrote:
> Hi, Stan:
>
> Marshall Crenshaw, one of my songwriting/home recording heroes, once
> called the Shure SM57 "the greatest microphone ever made."
>
> While "the greatest microphone" is clearly a matter of opinion, it's
> hard to come up with another microphone that can do so many different
> things as well as the SM57 can.
>
> Every studio, no matter how large or small, should have at least a few
> of these mics on hand. They are simply one of the best all-around mics
> one can use.
>

I love the 57. It's not the best at anything, but it's good at
everything. Built to take a beating, too.

-Des
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 6:13:41 AM

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

>> <skingfong@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> What do you consider as an industry standard as far as having mics. For
>>> example, SM81's, SM58 Nueuman U87 come to mind. What would you have in
>>> your arsenal and for which applications? What do you consider a "must
>>> have or a should have" for your studio?

> "SSJVCmag" <ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com> wrote
>> 2 of everything

"Dave Martin" <dmainc@earthlink.net> wrote:>>
> And three of the ones you like.

Thank you everybody...
We're here till Sunday .
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 8:24:50 AM

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

<skingfong@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1115335459.999824.41340@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> What do you consider as an industry standard as far as having mics. For
> example, SM81's, SM58 Nueuman U87 come to mind. What would you have in
> your arsenal and for which applications? What do you consider a "must
> have or a should have" for your studio?

If I had to pick my personal faves or "perfect mic closet", and assuming I
had the funding for all this, I would take the following as a bare minimum:

2x Neumann u-87 (my favorite drum OH's, and plenty of vox & other work)
2x Neumann u-67 with the Stephen Paul sub-micron mod (these rule for lots of
vox tracking)
1x B.L.U.E. Baby Bottle (if you haven't tried it on male rock vocals, you're
missing out)
2x B.L.U.E. Ball (for distorted guitar, it rules)
2x B.L.U.E. Kiwi (this thing rocks - I have one & would use a 2nd for OH's
and more)
4x Shure SM-57 (snare, possible electric guitar)
5x AKG 414's of any type (my favorite tom mic, plus it's great in omni for
BG vox; any of the 414 permutations work for me)
2x EV RE-20 (for kick options as well as micing bass cabs)
1x AKG D-112 (for that certain kinda kick sound you can't get from any other
mic)
1x Neumann TLM-103 (bass cabs - that extended low end plus the "pang" on the
top end really works)
1x Audix D-6 (for hard rawk kick, there is no other)
5x Audix D-4's (Toms, if the 414's don't work)
2x Audix i5 (what? you haven't heard this on snare or electric guitar yet?
SHAME ON YOU! lol)
7x Sennheiser 421's (guitar cabs & Toms options)
1x AKG 451 (Hi-Hat - there's nothing better, IMO)
2x Neumann KM-184 (for room micing of drums, as well as certain other
things)
1x Sennheiser 441 (Snare - works great if you want that ultimate "Crack!")
1x Milab DC-96 (nothing quite like this on Acoustic guitar - really sounds
wonderful)
1x AKG original C-12 (partly for the brand/name recognition, partly because
I haven't hard anything - including 'clones' thereof, that sounds quite like
it)

The above is mostly from my rock point of view, but nonetheless, I think
it's an interesting thread.

Neil Henderson

















>
>
> Stan
>
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 10:27:09 AM

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

How many clients walk in and say where's the U87?

mike http://www.mmeproductions.com

Mike Rivers wrote:
> In article <1115335459.999824.41340@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
skingfong@yahoo.com writes:
>
> > What do you consider as an industry standard as far as having mics.
For
> > example, SM81's, SM58 Nueuman U87 come to mind. What would you
have in
> > your arsenal and for which applications? What do you consider a
"must
> > have or a should have" for your studio?
>
> If a studio wants to attract commercial clients, they should have
some
> old like respectable microphones like U87s. Other than that, you have
> what you can afford, that works for what you need them for. Clients
> with a lot of money are not necessarily impressed with the sound of
> your expensive mics, but they're impressed with the fact that you
care
> enough to invest in known, standard, professional tools that they can
> count on.
>
>
>
> --
> 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
May 6, 2005 11:13:16 AM

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

"SSJVCmag" <ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com> wrote in message news:BEA04B14.7474%ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com...
>
> >> <skingfong@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> What do you consider as an industry standard as far as having mics. For
> >>> example, SM81's, SM58 Nueuman U87 come to mind. What would you have in
> >>> your arsenal and for which applications? What do you consider a "must
> >>> have or a should have" for your studio?
>
> > "SSJVCmag" <ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com> wrote
> >> 2 of everything
>
> "Dave Martin" <dmainc@earthlink.net> wrote:>>
> > And three of the ones you like.
>
> Thank you everybody...
> We're here till Sunday .


Yes, yes... don't applaud, just throw money....
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 11:38:10 AM

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

In article <1115335459.999824.41340@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> skingfong@yahoo.com writes:

> What do you consider as an industry standard as far as having mics. For
> example, SM81's, SM58 Nueuman U87 come to mind. What would you have in
> your arsenal and for which applications? What do you consider a "must
> have or a should have" for your studio?

If a studio wants to attract commercial clients, they should have some
old like respectable microphones like U87s. Other than that, you have
what you can afford, that works for what you need them for. Clients
with a lot of money are not necessarily impressed with the sound of
your expensive mics, but they're impressed with the fact that you care
enough to invest in known, standard, professional tools that they can
count on.



--
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
May 6, 2005 1:46:16 PM

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

In article <znr1115347135k@trad> mrivers@d-and-d.com (that's me!) writes:

> If a studio wants to attract commercial clients, they should have some
> old like respectable microphones like U87s.

That's supposed to be "old line respectable" which makes more sense in
context.


--
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
May 6, 2005 2:22:47 PM

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

Scot Clayton wrote:
> www.RonnieJamesDio.org

Sorry to get off topic here, but do you seriously run a Ronnie James
Dio message board? That's awsome in ways I can't even explain.
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 4:32:52 PM

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

On 5/6/05 12:43 AM, in article
1115354596.297394.282770@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com, "RD Jones"
<annonn@juno.com> wrote:

> After using a Royer ribbon (121?) at a well equiped
> studio earlier this week, I'm now looking to add
> a ribbon to my list.

AEA AEA AEA AEA AEA
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 4:53:35 PM

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

SSJVCmag wrote:
> On 5/6/05 12:43 AM, in article
> 1115354596.297394.282770@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com, "RD Jones"
> <annonn@juno.com> wrote:
>
>
>>After using a Royer ribbon (121?) at a well equiped
>>studio earlier this week, I'm now looking to add
>>a ribbon to my list.
>
>
> AEA AEA AEA AEA AEA
>

I've NEVER used a Ribbon...
Could someone fill me in on recommendations/uses, etc.?
I've always 'heard' that they were a bit noisy??


--
--Scot
www.RonnieJamesDio.org
www.SMCProductions.org
www.CraigGoldy.org
www.ScotClayton.org
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 5:30:51 PM

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

transmogrifa wrote:

> How many clients walk in and say where's the U87?
>

Three...why do you ask?


PapaNate
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 5:43:01 PM

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

"David Morgan (MAMS)" <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote in message
news:gOEee.3068$fQ2.398@trnddc05...
> >
> > "Dave Martin" <dmainc@earthlink.net> wrote:>>
> > > And three of the ones you like.
> >
> > Thank you everybody...
> > We're here till Sunday .
>
>
> Yes, yes... don't applaud, just throw money....
>
Or throw me some more mics...

--
Dave Martin
DMA, Inc
Nashville, TN
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 5:43:02 PM

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

"transmogrifa" <mmeprod@mmeproductions.com> wrote in message
news:1115386029.400739.208780@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> How many clients walk in and say where's the U87?
>
I've had a half dozen over the years.

--
Dave Martin
DMA, Inc
Nashville, TN
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 6:13:50 PM

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

On 5/6/05 9:46 AM, in article znr1115380317k@trad, "Mike Rivers"
<mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote:

>
> In article <znr1115347135k@trad> mrivers@d-and-d.com (that's me!) writes:
>
>> If a studio wants to attract commercial clients, they should have some
>> old like respectable microphones like U87s.
>
> That's supposed to be "old line respectable" which makes more sense in
> context.
>

I know a tyop when I see one
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 6:37:10 PM

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

On Thu, 05 May 2005 21:43:16 -0700, RD Jones wrote:

> enough drum mics to go around a set (57,421)

Wow, that's got to be one hell of a drum set. Fletcher gets by with 3.
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 6:39:34 PM

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

On Fri, 06 May 2005 02:12:18 +0000, Desdinova wrote:

> I love the 57. It's not the best at anything, but it's good at
> everything. Built to take a beating, too.

As long as the beating isn't administered with a drumstick, unfortunately.
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 6:39:35 PM

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

Agent 86 wrote:
> On Fri, 06 May 2005 02:12:18 +0000, Desdinova wrote:
>
>> I love the 57. It's not the best at anything, but it's good at
>> everything. Built to take a beating, too.
>
> As long as the beating isn't administered with a drumstick,
> unfortunately.

No kidding...I don't know how many 57's I've had to reattach the windscreen
to. I've got my own secret (not really) formula for doing so....

jak
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 9:22:38 PM

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

No, but they need more gain so you get more noise than with, say, a U87Ai.

Well, OK, some of the early low quality ribbon mics WERE noisy due to a poor
motor and noisy output transfo, but a good ribbon won't be that noisy at
all.

I really love the AEA R84. And it's pretty hot, too.

Hum rejection is very good for a ribbon mic - and it's built to last.

Go buy one!

JP

"Scot Clayton" <ScotClayton@ScotClayton.org> a écrit dans le message de
news:jNJee.59963$WI3.21619@attbi_s71...
> SSJVCmag wrote:
> > On 5/6/05 12:43 AM, in article
> > 1115354596.297394.282770@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com, "RD Jones"
> > <annonn@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>After using a Royer ribbon (121?) at a well equiped
> >>studio earlier this week, I'm now looking to add
> >>a ribbon to my list.
> >
> >
> > AEA AEA AEA AEA AEA
> >
>
> I've NEVER used a Ribbon...
> Could someone fill me in on recommendations/uses, etc.?
> I've always 'heard' that they were a bit noisy??
>
>
> --
> --Scot
> www.RonnieJamesDio.org
> www.SMCProductions.org
> www.CraigGoldy.org
> www.ScotClayton.org
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 9:23:53 PM

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

I got one of those...

The irony is, he doesn't sound too good through an 87 - or anything else
actually...

JP

"transmogrifa" <mmeprod@mmeproductions.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:1115386029.400739.208780@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> How many clients walk in and say where's the U87?
>
> mike http://www.mmeproductions.com
>
> Mike Rivers wrote:
> > In article <1115335459.999824.41340@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
> skingfong@yahoo.com writes:
> >
> > > What do you consider as an industry standard as far as having mics.
> For
> > > example, SM81's, SM58 Nueuman U87 come to mind. What would you
> have in
> > > your arsenal and for which applications? What do you consider a
> "must
> > > have or a should have" for your studio?
> >
> > If a studio wants to attract commercial clients, they should have
> some
> > old like respectable microphones like U87s. Other than that, you have
> > what you can afford, that works for what you need them for. Clients
> > with a lot of money are not necessarily impressed with the sound of
> > your expensive mics, but they're impressed with the fact that you
> care
> > enough to invest in known, standard, professional tools that they can
> > count on.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
May 7, 2005 8:48:21 PM

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

skingfong@yahoo.com wrote:

> What do you consider as an industry standard as far as having mics.

DPA. No, not in my budget and quite possibly also not in yours, but you
asked.

> What do you consider a "must have or a should have"
> for your studio?

Pairs of mics, or three of each, but at least two of each, you can then
do things in stereo instead of in multi-mono and end up having way
better stereo.

I miss the MD211 I once had, useful lil' thing.

> Stan


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 1:14:56 AM

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

In article <1115386029.400739.208780@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> mmeprod@mmeproductions.com writes:

> How many clients walk in and say where's the U87?

None, but the just feel better knowing that I'm the kind of studio who
will make the commitment to having one if it's the right tool for the
job.


--
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
May 9, 2005 1:50:33 PM

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

In article <znr1115387356k@trad>, Mike Rivers <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>In article <1115386029.400739.208780@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> mmeprod@mmeproductions.com writes:
>
>> How many clients walk in and say where's the U87?
>
>None, but the just feel better knowing that I'm the kind of studio who
>will make the commitment to having one if it's the right tool for the
>job.

I once had someone call asking about a quick voiceover demo, inquiring
whether I had a U87 available. I said I had only one and it wasn't
available the day he wanted it but I had plenty of U47s and U67s if
that would do. The silence on the end of the phone was deafening, and
the fellow basically said he couldn't afford that and hung up.

A shame he didn't ask for the rate as I would have given him a break
since the U87 was booked.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 8:49:05 PM

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

"Desdinova" wrote ...
> I love the 57. It's not the best at anything, but it's good at
> everything.

Maybe if "everything" includes only the subset of pop music.
Unlikely to be on many people's list in the classical branch.
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 9:43:02 PM

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

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message news:D 5npr9$596$1@panix2.panix.com...
> In article <znr1115387356k@trad>, Mike Rivers <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote:
> >In article <1115386029.400739.208780@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> mmeprod@mmeproductions.com writes:
> >
> >> How many clients walk in and say where's the U87?
> >
> >None, but the just feel better knowing that I'm the kind of studio who
> >will make the commitment to having one if it's the right tool for the
> >job.
>
> I once had someone call asking about a quick voiceover demo, inquiring
> whether I had a U87 available. I said I had only one and it wasn't
> available the day he wanted it but I had plenty of U47s and U67s if
> that would do. The silence on the end of the phone was deafening, and
> the fellow basically said he couldn't afford that and hung up.


Weird.
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 9:14:54 PM

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

"transmogrifa" <mmeprod@mmeproductions.com> wrote in message
news:1115386029.400739.208780@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> How many clients walk in and say where's the U87?

A few. But you'll often see raised eyebrows and a look of relief when a
potential customer spots one on the list.

I don't actually use mine much in real life.

geoff
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 9:14:55 PM

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

On Tue, 10 May 2005 01:14:54 -0400, Geoff Wood wrote
(in article <42804349$1@clear.net.nz>):

>
> "transmogrifa" <mmeprod@mmeproductions.com> wrote in message
> news:1115386029.400739.208780@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> How many clients walk in and say where's the U87?
>
> A few. But you'll often see raised eyebrows and a look of relief when a
> potential customer spots one on the list.
>
> I don't actually use mine much in real life.
>
> geoff
>
>

Wanna trade it for my cherry M160?

Ty

-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 3:26:33 AM

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

"Ty Ford" <tyreeford@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> How many clients walk in and say where's the U87?
>>
>> A few. But you'll often see raised eyebrows and a look of relief when a
>> potential customer spots one on the list.
>>
>> I don't actually use mine much in real life.
>>
>> geoff
>>
>>
>
> Wanna trade it for my cherry M160?

Naa - can't afford to frighten away the customers that feel they 'need' an
'87.

geoff
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 11:33:22 PM

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

Carey Carlan wrote:

> "Richard Crowley" <richard.7.crowley@intel.com> wrote in
news:D 5ostj$t5p$1
> @news01.intel.com:
>
> > "Desdinova" wrote ...
> >> I love the 57. It's not the best at anything, but it's good at
> >> everything.
> >
> > Maybe if "everything" includes only the subset of pop music.
> > Unlikely to be on many people's list in the classical branch.
>
> I'm in the "classical branch" and I don't own one. I've borrowed one
a
> couple of times for guitar cabinets and a friend does vocals into a
58. In
> both cases they do the job well, but I can think of no occasion in my

> "serious" recording where I'd reach for one.

'Pop' music recording is all about close
micing and sound shaping which the '57
does well. Even if one were to close mic
something for a classical project there
would be more appropriate choices.

I do, however, resent the implication
that classical (or any other type of)
music is more "serious" than another.

rd
May 12, 2005 1:08:33 AM

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

"RD Jones" <annonn@juno.com> wrote

> I do, however, resent the implication
> that classical (or any other type of)
> music is more "serious" than another.

I sure didn't read that into the OP. I assumed he meant "serious" was an
adjective to "recording" not "classical".

Julian
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 5:30:42 AM

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

"Richard Crowley" <richard.7.crowley@intel.com> wrote in news:D 5ostj$t5p$1
@news01.intel.com:

> "Desdinova" wrote ...
>> I love the 57. It's not the best at anything, but it's good at
>> everything.
>
> Maybe if "everything" includes only the subset of pop music.
> Unlikely to be on many people's list in the classical branch.

I'm in the "classical branch" and I don't own one. I've borrowed one a
couple of times for guitar cabinets and a friend does vocals into a 58. In
both cases they do the job well, but I can think of no occasion in my
"serious" recording where I'd reach for one.
May 12, 2005 5:30:43 AM

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

"Carey Carlan" <gulfjoe@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9653DAD711DC7gulfjoehotmailcom@207.69.189.191...
> "Richard Crowley" <richard.7.crowley@intel.com> wrote in news:D 5ostj$t5p$1
> @news01.intel.com:
>
>> "Desdinova" wrote ...
>>> I love the 57. It's not the best at anything, but it's good at
>>> everything.

> I'm in the "classical branch" and I don't own one. I've borrowed one a
> couple of times for guitar cabinets and a friend does vocals into a 58.
> In
> both cases they do the job well, but I can think of no occasion in my
> "serious" recording where I'd reach for one.

Neither can I for classical recording.

Julian
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 5:55:16 AM

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

On Thu, 12 May 2005 01:30:42 GMT, Carey Carlan <gulfjoe@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>>> I love the 57. It's not the best at anything, but it's good at
>>> everything.
>>
>> Maybe if "everything" includes only the subset of pop music.
>> Unlikely to be on many people's list in the classical branch.
>
>I'm in the "classical branch" and I don't own one. I've borrowed one a
>couple of times for guitar cabinets and a friend does vocals into a 58. In
>both cases they do the job well, but I can think of no occasion in my
>"serious" recording where I'd reach for one.

And as an offbeat aside, I've used them to SR a fiddle and bass fiddle
for out-of-towns in an otherwise "acoustic" opry gig. Long ways from
recording, of course.

Chris Hornbeck
May 12, 2005 5:55:17 AM

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

"Chris Hornbeck" <chrishornbeckremovethis@att.net> wrote


> And as an offbeat aside, I've used them to SR a fiddle and bass fiddle
> for out-of-towns in an otherwise "acoustic" opry gig. Long ways from
> recording, of course.

I also agree for SR a 58 can work quite well on strings.

Julian
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 5:38:28 PM

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

On 5/11/05 10:33 PM, in article
1115865202.037486.251860@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "RD Jones"
<annonn@juno.com> wrote:

>
> Carey Carlan wrote:
>
>> "Richard Crowley" <richard.7.crowley@intel.com> wrote in
> news:D 5ostj$t5p$1
>> @news01.intel.com:
>>
>>> "Desdinova" wrote ...
>>>> I love the 57. It's not the best at anything, but it's good at
>>>> everything.
>>>
>>> Maybe if "everything" includes only the subset of pop music.
>>> Unlikely to be on many people's list in the classical branch.
>>
>> I'm in the "classical branch" and I don't own one. I've borrowed one
> a
>> couple of times for guitar cabinets and a friend does vocals into a
> 58. In
>> both cases they do the job well, but I can think of no occasion in my
>
>> "serious" recording where I'd reach for one.
>
> 'Pop' music recording is all about close
> micing and sound shaping which the '57
> does well. Even if one were to close mic
> something for a classical project there
> would be more appropriate choices.
>
> I do, however, resent the implication
> that classical (or any other type of)
> music is more "serious" than another.
>
> rd
>

Resent it you can, but to what point? Simply admitting what a thing IS
should never be confused with any attached sense of percieved attack or
defense. You can compare all the aspects of the talent and skills and tools
that are employed to both compose and play music and, with the exception of
sheer Attitude (or joire-de-vivre or vitality), anything lumpable into Pop
Music is working with a massively handicapped set of all of it.
(I'd be helpful if the usual 'exceptions' didn;t get paraded out as
generalised defense examples)
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 10:52:34 PM

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

"RD Jones" <annonn@juno.com> wrote in news:1115865202.037486.251860
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

>
> Carey Carlan wrote:
>> I'm in the "classical branch" and I don't own one. I've borrowed one
>> a couple of times for guitar cabinets and a friend does vocals into a
>> 58. In both cases they do the job well, but I can think of no
>> occasion in my "serious" recording where I'd reach for one.
>
> I do, however, resent the implication
> that classical (or any other type of)
> music is more "serious" than another.

Wrong interpretation.

When *I* record non-classical, I'm not making a serious effort to do a good
job. My pop recordings are too clean to sound right.

Only when I record classical do I make a serious effort to get it right.
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 1:54:50 PM

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

On Sat, 14 May 2005 14:52:34 -0400, Carey Carlan wrote
(in article <Xns9656975A2DA18gulfjoehotmailcom@207.69.189.191>):

> "RD Jones" <annonn@juno.com> wrote in news:1115865202.037486.251860
> @g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
>>
>> Carey Carlan wrote:
>>> I'm in the "classical branch" and I don't own one. I've borrowed one
>>> a couple of times for guitar cabinets and a friend does vocals into a
>>> 58. In both cases they do the job well, but I can think of no
>>> occasion in my "serious" recording where I'd reach for one.
>>
>> I do, however, resent the implication
>> that classical (or any other type of)
>> music is more "serious" than another.
>
> Wrong interpretation.
>
> When *I* record non-classical, I'm not making a serious effort to do a good
> job. My pop recordings are too clean to sound right.


Clean as in technically or clean as in vocally?

Ty Ford


-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 9:47:41 PM

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

Carey Carlan wrote:

> "RD Jones" <annonn@juno.com> wrote in news:1115865202.037486.251860
> @g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> >
> > Carey Carlan wrote:
> >> I'm in the "classical branch" and I don't own one. I've borrowed
one
> >> a couple of times for guitar cabinets and a friend does vocals
into a
> >> 58. In both cases they do the job well, but I can think of no
> >> occasion in my "serious" recording where I'd reach for one.
> >
> > I do, however, resent the implication
> > that classical (or any other type of)
> > music is more "serious" than another.
>
> Wrong interpretation.
>
> When *I* record non-classical, I'm not making a serious effort to do
a good
> job. My pop recordings are too clean to sound right.
>
> Only when I record classical do I make a serious effort to get it
right.

This is exactly what I meant.
No wrong interpretation here.
Try staying busy in a town like
Nashville with an outlook like that !

rd
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 1:21:20 AM

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

RD Jones <annonn@juno.com> wrote:
>Carey Carlan wrote:
>>
>> Only when I record classical do I make a serious effort to get it
>right.
>
>This is exactly what I meant.
>No wrong interpretation here.
>Try staying busy in a town like
>Nashville with an outlook like that !

I dunno, there's an awful lot of classical work going on in Nashville.
I was kind of surprised to see it, too. But that could be a fun niche
to be in.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 4:07:04 AM

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

Ty Ford <tyreeford@comcast.net> wrote in
news:LOWdnXmYFNA2yRrfRVn-hQ@comcast.com:

>> When *I* record non-classical, I'm not making a serious effort to do
>> a good job. My pop recordings are too clean to sound right.
>
> Clean as in technically or clean as in vocally?

Yes. :)  The only rock bands I record belong to churches.
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 4:07:05 AM

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

On Sun, 15 May 2005 20:07:04 -0400, Carey Carlan wrote
(in article <Xns9657CCAE1DA78gulfjoehotmailcom@207.69.189.191>):

> Ty Ford <tyreeford@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:LOWdnXmYFNA2yRrfRVn-hQ@comcast.com:
>
>>> When *I* record non-classical, I'm not making a serious effort to do
>>> a good job. My pop recordings are too clean to sound right.
>>
>> Clean as in technically or clean as in vocally?
>
> Yes. :)  The only rock bands I record belong to churches.

Then, presumptuously on my part, you're doin' something wrong. As per the
cover of the latest MIX magazine, Cleanth is a virtue very few people even
get close to these days.

Ty

-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 6:08:01 AM

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

"RD Jones" <annonn@juno.com> wrote in news:1116204461.286736.118110
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

> This is exactly what I meant.
> No wrong interpretation here.
> Try staying busy in a town like
> Nashville with an outlook like that !

Easy answer. I'm not trying to stay in business. My day job is writing
computer software and my avocation of recording is taking up more time than
I can give it now.

Of course, it's buying me some pretty cool gear!
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 5:31:52 PM

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

Carey Carlan <gulfjoe@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns9657E12FF7659gulfjoehotmailcom@207.69.189.191:

> "RD Jones" <annonn@juno.com> wrote in news:1116204461.286736.118110
> @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
>
>> This is exactly what I meant.
>> No wrong interpretation here.
>> Try staying busy in a town like
>> Nashville with an outlook like that !
>
> Easy answer. I'm not trying to stay in business. My day job is
> writing computer software and my avocation of recording is taking up
> more time than I can give it now.
>
> Of course, it's buying me some pretty cool gear!

Re-reading that, it comes off too flippantly.

I care intensely about the quality of my recordings. But the qualities I
hold dear are valueless in the commercial pop market. I dislike heavy
compression, unnecessary distortion, auto-tuning and other overprocessing.
I value musicianship and individual performance.

When I record the average rock band, I have to either set aside most/all of
my standards or make a recording that most consider commercially un-viable.
That takes the "serious" edge off the effort.
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 7:02:12 AM

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

Carey Carlan wrote:
> Carey Carlan <gulfjoe@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:Xns9657E12FF7659gulfjoehotmailcom@207.69.189.191:
>
>
>>"RD Jones" <annonn@juno.com> wrote in news:1116204461.286736.118110
>>@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>>This is exactly what I meant.
>>>No wrong interpretation here.
>>>Try staying busy in a town like
>>>Nashville with an outlook like that !
>>
>>Easy answer. I'm not trying to stay in business. My day job is
>>writing computer software and my avocation of recording is taking up
>>more time than I can give it now.
>>
>>Of course, it's buying me some pretty cool gear!
>
>
> Re-reading that, it comes off too flippantly.
>
> I care intensely about the quality of my recordings. But the qualities I
> hold dear are valueless in the commercial pop market. I dislike heavy
> compression, unnecessary distortion, auto-tuning and other overprocessing.
> I value musicianship and individual performance.
>
> When I record the average rock band, I have to either set aside most/all of
> my standards or make a recording that most consider commercially un-viable.
> That takes the "serious" edge off the effort.


Carey, I've heard one of your pop recordings - and it was fine. The
performances were a bit strained, but the recording itself worked.

--
Les Cargill
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 4:15:21 PM

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

Les Cargill <lNOcargill@cfl.Arr.com> wrote in
news:Ueyie.45460$IO.35533@tornado.tampabay.rr.com:

> Carey Carlan wrote:

>> I care intensely about the quality of my recordings. But the
>> qualities I hold dear are valueless in the commercial pop market. I
>> dislike heavy compression, unnecessary distortion, auto-tuning and
>> other overprocessing. I value musicianship and individual
>> performance.
>>
>> When I record the average rock band, I have to either set aside
>> most/all of my standards or make a recording that most consider
>> commercially un-viable. That takes the "serious" edge off the
>> effort.
>
> Carey, I've heard one of your pop recordings - and it was fine. The
> performances were a bit strained, but the recording itself worked.

But wasn't it an uncompressed, undistorted recording?

I'm hoping I remember which band I put up for critique. Usually, they come
back and says, "Make it louder!" That group didn't.
!