In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Achieved via introduction of distortions that some find pleasing.

Others might prefer to add such distortions or not, as an *option*,
not an inherent quality of the system.

*Sigh*....

If I had a penny for every time I've heard/read that old chestnut

That the 'old chestnut' is provably true doesn't concern you?

I could afford the portable digital recorder I would like.....

But surely a man of your discrimation would demand an analogue machine?

Why not even a disc recorder? They come up on Ebay from time to time.

--
*Horn broken. - Watch for finger.

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

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Oh that isn't a problem for incompetent engineers. However, to make an
LP sound as good as a well recorded CD is impossible. And that's the
crux of the matter.

Depends on what sounds 'good' to the listener. If you like the 'sound'
of the LP medium, then a CD won't ever sound as good as LP unless you
transfer the LP to CD (or develop a mastering scheme that replicates
that sound).

An LP transcripted to CD using the finest equipment and the greatest care
still won't 'sound' the same to vinyl nuts. Their 'realism' comes from
watching the turntable go round and round...

--
*If you can't see my mirrors, I'm doing my hair*

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

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Not in the least - I've said it 20 million times he I couldn't care
less who likes/prefers what.

But rise to each and every bait to preach your vinyl gospel...

All I don't like is when the digital bigots try to (unsuccessfully)
eradicate vinyl from this group as a valid 'audio' format.

How can anyone try to eliminate anything from a public un moderated group?
Have you had treatment for your paranoia?

I call them the Denial Boyz - they *hate* that!! :-)

You have insight into the minds of those who read this group?

I queried your use of 'denial' before as it's a term used by addicts.

So say no more...

--
*Confession is good for the soul, but bad for your career.

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

"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in
message
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 13:07:56 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

I'm thinking that those old high output condenser mics
may have had higher output levels designed to overcome
the inherent noise of the tubed equipment they were used
with.

What sort of circuit did they use to achieve the high
output? :-)

I presume that you mean to elicit the following answer: "A tube". ;-)

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:32:37 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
BTW it mght be possible to make a pretty good organ recording with just
mics and a top-notch line-level audio interface, no mic preamp needed.
120 dB below about 1 volt is a pretty good noise floor for a mic.

Some older well regarded condenser mics had a much higher output than is
common these days - most now conform to the DIN standard. Many years ago I
mixed a live TV pop show in a small studio with very rudimentary sound
facilities (great fun actually) and plugged most of the mics (AKG C28)
into the line inputs. Straight into the fader. ;-)

One such mic I own is a Neumann U77.

In fact the only reason I used a preamp on that recording was that it
was a handy way to get 48V. Otherwise it would have been straight into
line, no problem.

d

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

Laurence Payne wrote:

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 13:07:56 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

I'm thinking that those old high output condenser mics may have had higher
output levels designed to overcome the inherent noise of the tubed equipment
they were used with.

What sort of circuit did they use to achieve the high output? :-)

A large capsule and a high polarising voltage does it.

Graham

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Laurence Payne" wrote
"Arny Krueger" wrote

I'm thinking that those old high output condenser mics
may have had higher output levels designed to overcome
the inherent noise of the tubed equipment they were used
with.

What sort of circuit did they use to achieve the high
output? :-)

I presume that you mean to elicit the following answer: "A tube". ;-)

You missed the important bits.

Graham

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:

"Laurence Payne" wrote
"Arny Krueger" wrote

I'm thinking that those old high output condenser mics
may have had higher output levels designed to overcome
the inherent noise of the tubed equipment they were
used with.

What sort of circuit did they use to achieve the high
output? :-)

I presume that you mean to elicit the following answer:
"A tube". ;-)

You missed the important bits.


Of course. The smiley emoticons are supposted to indicate that we were
joking.

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:
I'm thinking that those old high output condenser mics may have had
higher output levels designed to overcome the inherent noise of the
tubed equipment they were used with.

What sort of circuit did they use to achieve the high output? :-)

A large capsule and a high polarising voltage does it.

The AKG C28 is a small capsule design. About 1". Interchangeable with
later C451s.

--
*When the going gets tough, use duct tape

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

In rec.audio.tech wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On 30 Oct 2006 08:04:05 -0800, wrote:


Don Pearce wrote:
On 29 Oct 2006 21:10:42 -0800, wrote:


As ever the point whistles straight over your head Scott, sonny. There
is NO mastering on that recording. It went to CD EXACTLY as it came
from the mics.

Wow you have the first all analog CD. That's amazing. "It went to CD
exactly as it came from the mics." You should publish a technical
article on this amazing breakthrough. No mic preamp, no A/D converter,
nothin but the raw analog signal off the mics. Yep that did go right
over my head.

Don't you get tired of making an ass of yourself?


So is that a no on the name drop?


Scott

That little insect buzzing noise is back again. It is seriously
irritating.

Goooood come back. Very witty and original. Maybe you should write
comedy. You do amuse me. Gotta love those new CDs of yours that are
copied straight off the mic with no A/D conversion. That made me laugh.


Scott

Scott, had it been anybody else saying this, I would have believed
that they knew what I meant and were taking the **** in a rather
half-arsed way at my shorthand. But this is you, so I take you at face
value and assume you really do believe I think I wrote analogue to a
CD. You really are too stupid for words.



Dude, you are the idiot that said " There is NO mastering on that
recording. It went to CD EXACTLY as it came from the mics."
Did you not know that exactly what came from the mics was an analog
signal? Did you not know that what goes into a CD is a digital signal?
Your words dude. Your stupidity. Don't expect others to clean up your
mess.

An analog signal fed from a mic to a digital recorder stands a good chance of coming out
exactly as it came from the mic, when converted back to analog (as all
digital must). An analog signal fed to an analog recorder, doesn't.

Of course, neither is 'exactly like' the original *sound*...because of the
hit it takes in the mic (an analog transducer)


___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason