On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 09:32:27 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


You are pushing against an open door here, though.

Interesting figure of speech. It seems to fit.

I love the sound of large diaphragm condensers in the
right application. That application
is of course the creation of a certain sound and ambience.
But I have
no illusions about their accuracy - indeed, who cares
about that?

Some of us do care about accuracy of reproduction. However,
the process of recording admits a lot of judgement calls in
that regard. Since facsimile reproduction is impossible at
the current state of the electroacoustic arts, all
recordings are the results of any number of judgement calls.

Reproduction, sure. But not much music these days is about
reproduction, but about production. In that circumstance you use a
carbon mic if that produces the sound you want.

The clip you provided is a perfect illustration of where
and why you
would use one.

Perhaps.

But suppose you were trying to catch the subtlety of a
symphony orchestra with a crossed pair - accuracy being a
prime
concern - you wouldn't even consider a LD mic, would you?

Coincident pairs of LD mics are controversial, but they
aren't totally avoided.

Suppose you were recording a chamber orchestra and you had just one
chance to get it right. Which would you go for? For me, the big ones
would stay in the cupboard.

OK - you are
now going to find someone who has, and it worked. But I'm
sure you get
the general picture.

I don't see the general picture. While I don't like LD mics,
I see considerable wiggle room when it comes to their use in
coincident pairs. I think that when they are avoided they
are avoided on intuitive grounds, being that large mics are
far more difficult to make truely coincident due to their
size.

I believe all the recording you do is performance based - right?

This all started with the tiny diaphragm mics, and a
feeling that they
were somehow deficient, Dave Plowman thought they had
compressed
dynamics, and I hope I have laid that to rest.

Indeed.

What they do have is
limited dynamic range on account of poor noise
performance.

In most applications no apologies need to be made for the
background noise performance of the better, quieter SD mics.

Remember we are talking about the SSD capsules, not quiet SD mics.

what they
also have is perhaps too much accuracy, which makes them,
to some
ears, rather soulless.

I find that accuracy is far easier to give away than it is
to find by random means or otherwise obtain after the fact.

BUt for many engineers and producers, an LD that they know inside out
as an old friend is a tool they can work with and produce a result,
even if a flatter mic might be "better".

Now when you are in the business of producing
exciting sounds, that can only be a bad thing, but if what
you are
after is accurate reproduction of a performance, it is
really rather
good.

Artificial excitement is not an oxymoron, and its fairly
easy to obtain when the only means at hand are artificial.
Artificial naturalness IS an oxymoron, and it is often very
hard to obtain when the only means at hand are artificial.


Again, natural is not a strong point for an LD. Exciting, warm -
whatever - all can be.

d

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

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

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 10:29:08 +0300, "Iain M Churches"
wrote:

Further to earlier discussion on UKRA
I have been thinking about the use of large capsule
condensers for cymbals, and why despite the far greater
risk of a large mic being hit by a drum stick, that they
are the microphone of choice for most.

I don't know about LD mics being the mic of choice for most.
Maybe some time ago...

Those who have them/can afford them certainly use them.
But they are horrendously expensive, even to lease.


Small diaphragm mics work well on snare and hi-hat
(not much subtlety the-)

Indeed. Not only are small diaphragm mics (usually 3/4" down
to 1/2") used with snares and cymbals, even miniature
diaphragm mics (1/2" and smaller) are prized for the same
application.

Which takes us back to the original statement by the Swedish
engineer that large condensers have more subtlety, making
them ideal for the type of recording which I posted. I have
doubts that I could have achieved this cymbal sound with
any thing else than a pair of 87s

It would seem like the resolution of a controversy about LD
versus SD mics would require actual relevant evidence. IOW,
recordings of the same performance made with both kinds of
mics.

There is no controversy, and of course a double mic set-up
is totally impracticable:-) A double kit requires 12 to 14
mics if you have decided upon full multi microphone technique.
So doubling that up means 28 channels - more than half the
console. You don't do your homework in the client's time.

It's good practice to talk with the artists to find out their
preferences. Many drummers can play you something
from a CD, which saves a great deal of time. One can also
save a great deal of time aned money by availing oneself
of the services of a professional drum tuner before the
sound check/session begins. He gets a 3hr session fee
for a 45min job, but it's money well spent.
Multi-microphone drum recordings are tricky - you soon
get into very deep water with noise-gates etc -
but interesting.


Exactly. All we have here is an isolated example of
something that sounds kinda nice.

So we achieved our objective:-)

The clip you provided is a perfect illustration of where
and why you
would use one.

Perhaps.

:-) is there any doubt?

Coincident pairs of LD mics are controversial, but they
aren't totally avoided.

Large condensers are difficult to use in co-incidental pairs,
hence not often seen in this application.

I don't see the general picture. While I don't like LD mics,
I see considerable wiggle room when it comes to their use in
coincident pairs. I think that when they are avoided they
are avoided on intuitive grounds, being that large mics are
far more difficult to make truely coincident due to their
size.

True. covered above. Have you tried the 87, Arnie? I would
have thought a pair would have given you excellent results for
your choir work. But, as they say about the Bosendorfer concert
grand piano, - the only people who don't like them are the
people who have never played/heard one:-)))


In most applications no apologies need to be made for the
background noise performance of the better, quieter SD mics.

Hmm. Depends on how fussy the client it:-)

Artificial excitement is not an oxymoron, and its fairly
easy to obtain when the only means at hand are artificial.
Artificial naturalness IS an oxymoron, and it is often very
hard to obtain when the only means at hand are artificial.

Surely, we all strive to make interesting recordings. Not something
so sterile that people fall asleep during the second movement.
Very few recording these days are acoustic concert recordings,
so a good engineer needs to be much more versatile.

In the case of jazz and pop repertoire, the listener expects to
be entertained not only by the performance but by the recording
itself. Try a slow phase shift across a pair of ride cymbals,
L+R Arny. Keep it subtle, - so subtle that not everyone will
even notice it. It's magic:-)

The music recording is often a bit like coooking -
you need to know how to use the herbs and spices -
very few people eat "natural" any more. There are as
many good recording teams as there are good restaurants.
so expectations are high:-)

Cordially,

Iain

In article , Iain M Churches
writes

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

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 10:29:08 +0300, "Iain M Churches"
wrote:

Further to earlier discussion on UKRA
I have been thinking about the use of large capsule
condensers for cymbals, and why despite the far greater
risk of a large mic being hit by a drum stick, that they
are the microphone of choice for most.

I don't know about LD mics being the mic of choice for most.
Maybe some time ago...

Those who have them/can afford them certainly use them.
But they are horrendously expensive, even to lease.

What sort of moolah?.....
--
Tony Sayer

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 21:05:42 +0100, tony sayer wrote:

In article , Iain M Churches
writes

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


I don't know about LD mics being the mic of choice for most.
Maybe some time ago...

Those who have them/can afford them certainly use them.
But they are horrendously expensive, even to lease.

What sort of moolah?.....

They start at under 100 quid for a Chinese one. Iain was probably thinking
of the Neumann mics which start at around 600 quid for a large diaphragm
condenser and go up to around 2000. I've often seen BBC TV performances
where they had U87's everywhere - only the BBC could afford that many
U87's.

Cheers.

James.

In article ,
James Perrett wrote:
I've often seen BBC TV performances
where they had U87's everywhere - only the BBC could afford that many
U87's.

Thames TV at Teddington had 40. Used them in booms, too.
We had more of those than any other, although KM84 came close.

--
*Xerox and Wurlitzer will merge to market reproductive organs.

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