AKG 414...then and now

Discussion in 'rec.audio.pro' started by xy, Aug 22, 2003.

  1. david

    david Guest

    DSatz@msn.com (David Satz) wrote in message
    news:<e6a68193.0308261009.334f99d3@posting.google.com>...
    >
    > When two microphones have
    > distinctly different frequency response, the subjective differences in the
    > resulting tracks will manifest themselves through other aspects of sound
    > such as detail, spatial qualities, etc. But use a good EQ to match the
    > frequency response and those other qualitative differences often melt away.
    > Certainly not always and not 100%--but often to a very surprising extent.
    >
    > There's an important lesson to be learned from that experience, if people
    > would just be open to it and think it through. Instead of wasting quite
    > so much session time trying microphone after microphone, folks could make
    > their sonic decisions at leisure (after the session is over) and revise
    > those decisions at any time if need be.
    >
    > But the belief systems promoted by microphone manufacturers and dealers
    > ("Our microphones contain magic!") preclude taking this approach seriously.
    > So many engineers never try using flat-response microphones and never try
    > seriously to develop the needed EQ skills. So they never find out what's
    > possible, and they go on believing what they believe about microphones.



    I've been teaching recording for 22 years now as part of running my
    place, and I gotta disagree with this, namely that the answer to using
    mics is to use eq more. I really disagree.

    Spending time using microphones and microphone placement can def be
    characterized as "old school." The idea of finding the right microphone
    in the right place is not what most students believe or know about when
    they start out. There is in its place the idea of getting a sound
    "right" by twiddling with eq, either in their computer or on their
    mixer, not by moving mics or trying different mics.

    I always spend time with showing how different microphones on the same
    sound source create very different sounds. And how moving a microphone
    changes the sound. It is always an eye opener!

    I teach my students the best way to get a sound, if at all possible, is
    with no eq, namely the right microphone in the right place. Does it
    take a little longer? Sure. Does it yield better sounds? Absolutely.

    It's what I believe. And I am quick to say that if you still ain't
    satisfied then of course use eq, that it ain't something to be
    religious about. I'll often use eq on stuff. (Very good eq's ;>.)

    I also teach you should be very happy with the sound when you record it
    or you are not yet ready to press record. Cause there ain't no
    guarantee you're gonna find it "in the future." As written in the
    sacred texts of The Firesign Testaments, "Welcome to the future."




    David Correia
    Celebration Sound
    Warren, Rhode Island

    CelebrationSound@aol.com
    www.CelebrationSound.com
  2. Luke Kaven

    Luke Kaven Guest

    kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

    [...]
    >Sometimes people want exaggerated unnatural effects. Then they use something
    >different. Personally I am still looking for a 200mm f/2.8 Aero-Ektar for
    >portraits....
    >--scott


    Is it true these lenses (talking about the 178mm f2.5 Aero Ektar, the
    one used on the Strato-Fortress for night photography?) are
    radioactive?

    Luke
  3. Ty Ford

    Ty Ford Guest

    In Article <010920032250399750%ihate@spamo.com>, david <ihate@spamo.com> wrote:
    >DSatz@msn.com (David Satz) wrote in message
    >news:<e6a68193.0308261009.334f99d3@posting.google.com>...
    >I've been teaching recording for 22 years now as part of running my
    >place, and I gotta disagree with this, namely that the answer to using
    >mics is to use eq more. I really disagree.
    >
    >Spending time using microphones and microphone placement can def be
    >characterized as "old school." The idea of finding the right microphone
    >in the right place is not what most students believe or know about when
    >they start out. There is in its place the idea of getting a sound
    >"right" by twiddling with eq, either in their computer or on their
    >mixer, not by moving mics or trying different mics.
    >
    >I always spend time with showing how different microphones on the same
    >sound source create very different sounds. And how moving a microphone
    >changes the sound. It is always an eye opener!
    >
    >I teach my students the best way to get a sound, if at all possible, is
    >with no eq, namely the right microphone in the right place. Does it
    >take a little longer? Sure. Does it yield better sounds? Absolutely.
    >
    >It's what I believe. And I am quick to say that if you still ain't
    >satisfied then of course use eq, that it ain't something to be
    >religious about. I'll often use eq on stuff. (Very good eq's ;>.)
    >
    >I also teach you should be very happy with the sound when you record it
    >or you are not yet ready to press record. Cause there ain't no
    >guarantee you're gonna find it "in the future." As written in the
    >sacred texts of The Firesign Testaments, "Welcome to the future."
    >David Correia
    >Celebration Sound
    >Warren, Rhode Island
    >
    >CelebrationSound@aol.com
    >www.CelebrationSound.com



    Dear Uh Clem,

    Any craftsperson can twist a knob. Learning NOT to twist it makes on an
    artist. Moving mics is part of the art. (Except in live sound and there you
    need all the help you can get.)

    Regards,

    Ty Ford




    For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
    click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford
  4. Scott Dorsey

    Scott Dorsey Guest

    Luke Kaven <luke@smallsrecords.com> wrote:
    >kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
    >
    >[...]
    >>Sometimes people want exaggerated unnatural effects. Then they use something
    >>different. Personally I am still looking for a 200mm f/2.8 Aero-Ektar for
    >>portraits....

    >
    >Is it true these lenses (talking about the 178mm f2.5 Aero Ektar, the
    >one used on the Strato-Fortress for night photography?) are
    >radioactive?


    Yes, the rare earth elements used in the glass are slightly radioactive.
    Mostly alpha particles, though.

    Bricks are radioactive too, from the potassium isotopes in them. Leave
    a sheet of Tri-X on a brick for a week and you'll see a noticeable outline
    when the stuff is processed.

    Dave Dintenfass sent me a really great article from the Journal of the Royal
    Photographic Society about the various lenses with fluorite and rare earth
    materials and what the particle counts from some samples were.
    --scott

    By the way, I'd settle for the 178mm f/2.5 but I'd really prefer the 200mm
    one. If you ever see any of these let me know. Also I could use a good
    coated 135mm to replace my Xenar.
    --
    "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  5. David Satz

    David Satz Guest

    David Correia wrote:

    > I've been teaching recording for 22 years now as part of running my
    > place, and I gotta disagree with this, namely that the answer to using
    > mics is to use eq more. I really disagree.


    David, I agree strongly with your disagreement with what you seem to think
    I wrote (!). What you teach sounds like very good stuff indeed. Please
    let's agree to agree that putting the right microphones in the right place
    is extremely important--because [a] it totally is, and because I never
    said that it wasn't, nor anything remotely like that.

    Nor would I, unless I had lost my mind. And that will happen sooner or
    later, but this seems a bit premature.

    I just meant that putting one microphone after another after another in
    the _same_ place--mainly scant inches in front of a singer's maw--isn't
    exactly the high point of the engineer's craft, unless it's being done
    as a pure experiment (in which case I wish that more people would try it).

    Also, I believe that the widespread belief that the "color" built into
    a microphone is somehow fundamentally different from that same color as
    obtained from a judicious use of EQ--applied to the signal from a less
    peaky microphone--is ignorant, and leads to wasteful spending on too many
    of what I have poetically described as "crap" microphones.

    I'd frankly almost rather see people buy some nice, smooth, mid-priced,
    well-behaved microphone and use one of those fershlugginer "mic modeling
    preamps" than buy every $99 "LDC of the Month" that comes along (including
    the ones that are sold at higher prices so that people won't think of them
    as the $99 microphones that they actually are)--though better yet would be
    to get off the merry-go-round entirely and just let it spin on its own.

    It wouldn't surprise me to find out that you agree with these ideas, too.

    --best regards
  6. david

    david Guest

    In article <e6a68193.0309020922.2a26e90e@posting.google.com>, David
    Satz <DSatz@msn.com> wrote:

    > David, I agree strongly with your disagreement with what you seem to think
    > I wrote (!). What you teach sounds like very good stuff indeed. Please
    > let's agree to agree that putting the right microphones in the right place
    > is extremely important--because [a] it totally is, and because I never
    > said that it wasn't, nor anything remotely like that.
    >
    > Nor would I, unless I had lost my mind. And that will happen sooner or
    > later, but this seems a bit premature.


    Wish I could say the same . ;>


    > I just meant that putting one microphone after another after another in
    > the _same_ place--mainly scant inches in front of a singer's maw--isn't
    > exactly the high point of the engineer's craft, unless it's being done
    > as a pure experiment (in which case I wish that more people would try it).


    Yes, doing that is also part of what we teach. Always put up more than
    one mic when you first record someone's voice. The best sounding one on
    that person will be evident. Nor, as you well know, will it always be
    the most expensive one in one's collection.


    > Also, I believe that the widespread belief that the "color" built into
    > a microphone is somehow fundamentally different from that same color as
    > obtained from a judicious use of EQ--applied to the signal from a less
    > peaky microphone--is ignorant, and leads to wasteful spending on too
    > many
    > of what I have poetically described as "crap" microphones.


    One of my points was to be sure to find, as closely as possible, the
    sound you are looking for when you print it, and not to presume that it
    can be found later with eq.


    > I'd frankly almost rather see people buy some nice, smooth, mid-priced,
    > well-behaved microphone and use one of those fershlugginer "mic modeling
    > preamps" than buy every $99 "LDC of the Month" that comes along
    > (including
    > the ones that are sold at higher prices so that people won't think of
    > them
    > as the $99 microphones that they actually are)--though better yet would
    > be
    > to get off the merry-go-round entirely and just let it spin on its own.
    >
    > It wouldn't surprise me to find out that you agree with these ideas,
    > too.



    I kinda keep my mouth shut about the Chinese clones with my students as
    I don't own any except for a no longer made SE Electronics SE-5000.

    Microphones are things we often attach ourselves too. I think an
    important thing is to keep an open mind. E.g. for years I used a 421
    and akg d12E for rock kick drum. Someone I respected said to try a
    Beyer M88 instead of the 421. I said naaa, the 421 often does exactly
    what I want it too and has for many years. But I did try it and he was
    right. (He recently said to try the new Shure kick mic, think its a 52,
    and in time I will.)

    Maybe it's not so bad that folks are curious and are buying these new
    inexpensive condenser mics. (Lucky I don't work for Neumann, I think.)
    In time, if they have any ears at all, they will learn which ones get
    the job done for them and which don't. For beginners I always suggest
    starting with an sm-57.

    The other thing about beginners is they typically way over eq. And
    always to the right of 12 o'clock!! I joke that it takes a year or two
    before they'll discover that their eq's also have a minus component,
    found to the left of 12 o'clock.



    David Correia
    Celebration Sound
    Warren, Rhode Island

    CelebrationSound@aol.com
    www.CelebrationSound.com

Share This Page