Stewart. Do you realise....
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message

In article ,
Iain M Churches wrote:
That a very large percentage of microphones
used in digital recordings are valve microphones.

Iain, it would help if you provided a reference when quoting - it's
the convention, as well as the polite thing to do.

Oh dear :-((

Neumann 49, 50, 56, 64 and U87 are very
popular.

They indeed are. Although I've never seen a valve U87. And mine
certainly aren't.

AFAIK, and as far as my references seem to know, the U87 always came from
the factory as solid state. There have been tube retrofit kits for them,
but...

Don't believe me? of course you don't:-)
Check the AES Journal (of which I am sure you are
a member, as the A stands for Audio and the E for
Engineering)

As a rule, AES articles don't mention specific products.

Also read some of the excellent recent
articles in Studio Sound,
to which I am sure you subscribe.

But very large percentage? You'd have to be rather more specific.

How about very large percentage of tubed microphones? ;-)

Perhaps a fair percentage of recordings might involve the use of some
valve microphone. As a percentage of mics used in all recordings, it
would be small.

Agreed. It is generally understood that a very large proportion (most???) of
the *professional* microphones in the world are either Shure SM57 and close
derivatives or EV 635 and close derivatives. Both are magnetic, entirely
passive and contain no active components such as tubes.

Stewart. Do you realise....
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message


Do bear in mind though that the signal levels involved in mics are
minute - they don't come anywhere near the voltage swings that cause
all the problems later on in the amplification chain.

While that is a good guide, it;s not a general rule. Many condenser mics
will put out a pretty respectable line-level signal if you provide a very
loud acoustical source.

And also applying a subtle distortion to a single instrument doesn't
have anything like the same effect as applying that same distortion to
a multi-instrument mix.

Agreed. The IM effects you get with one instrument may be euphonic, while
the same levels of the same kind of distortion as applied to an orchestra
can be fairly distressing to any ear, even those belonging to tubophiles.

Stewart. Do you realise....
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:50:06 +0300, "Iain M Churches"
wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
Iain, it would help if you provided a reference when quoting - it's the
convention, as well as the polite thing to do.

Sorry Dave. Not intentional.

Valve mics in digital recording

Perhaps a fair percentage of recordings might involve the use of some
valve microphone. As a percentage of mics used in all recordings, it
would
be small.

Neither of us can really what is going on outside our own recording
spheres with accuracy.

I had a message yesterday from a former colleague working at this moment
in LA ( I think the location is Royce Hall)
All mics on the sessions are valve. 47, 49,50, 56, 64

So, that's 100% for that project:-)))

Iain


Do bear in mind though that the signal levels involved in mics are
minute - they don't come anywhere near the voltage swings that cause
all the problems later on in the amplification chain.


And also applying a subtle distortion to a single instrument doesn't
have anything like the same effect as applying that same distortion to
a multi-instrument mix.

Agreed. The problems were not with the mics themselves, or their
valve front ends, but the psu, and mic preamp. As I remember they
used to come from the "box" straight into the desk at line level.
But those old mics do sound absolutely wonderful on large
string sections.

It's horses for courses. I don't think we can be too adamant either
way. I like to see a mix of technology.

I sometimes work in a studio in Stockholm where they record
analogue, Studer A80/24 and then transfer to ProTools (hard disk
multitrack with a Mac front end) for editing. Then a mix onto two tracks
of the hard disk recorder and pass in the digi
domain to DAT for the production master. Their clients are happy,
and it seems a very efficient way to work. Digital editing is like
using a wordprocessor, cut and paste. Wonderful:-))


Iain

Stewart. Do you realise....
 

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 10:19:24 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message


Do bear in mind though that the signal levels involved in mics are
minute - they don't come anywhere near the voltage swings that cause
all the problems later on in the amplification chain.

While that is a good guide, it;s not a general rule. Many condenser mics
will put out a pretty respectable line-level signal if you provide a very
loud acoustical source.

I was thinking more of the tens-of-volts signals that rally hammer the
transfer curve.


d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Stewart. Do you realise....
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Don Pearce" wrote in message

And also applying a subtle distortion to a single instrument doesn't
have anything like the same effect as applying that same distortion to
a multi-instrument mix.

Agreed. The IM effects you get with one instrument may be euphonic, while
the same levels of the same kind of distortion as applied to an orchestra
can be fairly distressing to any ear, even those belonging to tubophiles.


You don't need to use a mic a cable or a pre-amps either valve or SS to hear
that.
Just sit behind a French horn section of four players are hear the IM
acoustically:-)

Iain

Stewart. Do you realise....
 

In article ,
Iain M Churches wrote:
PS. Just had an e-mail from an outside observer, of this NG
who reminds me that a large number of "state of the art"
compressors have a valve front end.

As do transmitters. But most don't use either at home.

--
*If vegetable oil comes from vegetables, where does baby oil come from? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Stewart. Do you realise....
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message

They indeed are. Although I've never seen a valve U87. And mine
certainly aren't.

I don't think it's performance is much different to its valve predecessor,
(U67 wasn't it?)

As a rule, AES articles don't mention specific products.

I think the Royce Hall project of which I spoke has been written about
recently.


It is generally understood that a very large proportion (most???) of the
*professional* microphones in the world are either Shure SM57 and close
derivatives or EV 635 and close derivatives. Both are magnetic, entirely
passive and contain no active components such as tubes.

I like to use Beyers and Shures on drum kits, (because I can't stand the
thought
of a drummer thrashing a Neumann suspended above the top cymbals:-)
Otherwise I use condensers.

By the way. do you ever get to record live drums?. I have a feeling it
may be a dying art in studios. At the start of the digi era, we took to
recording
a full kit guide track (to a click) and then one drum at a time
:-((((((((( Deadly.
I do quite a lot of jazz, where the kit is alive and kicking:-)


Iain

Stewart. Do you realise....
 

In article ,
Iain M Churches wrote:
Have you ever worked with a valve mic, and tried to set the cardioid
response? It's a lot of fun, takes a very long time, and needs three
people. One at the console, one to twiddle the control on the
psu, and one to shout "On the front.1.2.3.4." and then whisper
"On the back 1.2.3.4."

The only valve mic I have is a C12. With a remote PD selector.
The mic is rather too noisy for most modern requirements, though, despite
a recent valve change. Sounds nice if this isn't a problem.

--
*Real women don't have hot flashes, they have power surges.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Stewart. Do you realise....
 

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
Do bear in mind though that the signal levels involved in mics are
minute - they don't come anywhere near the voltage swings that cause
all the problems later on in the amplification chain.

While that is a good guide, it;s not a general rule. Many condenser mics
will put out a pretty respectable line-level signal if you provide a
very loud acoustical source.

Ah. What you *really* need is a U77. Damn near zero level on speech - and
can use an internal PP3 battery.

Embarrassment on some desks - bashes the front end into the middle of next
week...

--
*There are two sides to every divorce: Yours and **** head's*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Stewart. Do you realise....
 

In article ,
Iain M Churches wrote:
Agreed. The problems were not with the mics themselves, or their
valve front ends, but the psu, and mic preamp. As I remember they
used to come from the "box" straight into the desk at line level.
But those old mics do sound absolutely wonderful on large
string sections.

Of course in those days there was no DIN standard output level for mics.
But none of the valve ones I was familiar with (mainly AKG) gave line
level out under normal circumstances. Close on a trumpet etc yes.

--
*Why is the man who invests all your money called a broker? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.