On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 09:05:33 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

Well, the sound of Dan the Music Man on the Vinylvend channel was
exactly what I would call harsh. Was he using a C1000s maybe?

:-)

There are lots of examples of "harsh mixes" Take a listen to a
very good song by Kirsty MacColl. It was a nicely-made
multitrack, but the vinyl single has outrageous compression and EQ -
even more than on the YouTubeclip. It was loud on the radio, though:-)
This was "fashionable" long before the advent of CD.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1oKU5BJ4bQ

Iain



Even more up to date, take the case of Esmee Denters. She started out
recording her own versions of hit songs on Youtube. Very nice voice
that has been turned into a screeching mess by Justin Timberlake and
his "production methods".

Kirsty, though, was a victim of her own insecurity. She never believed
she had a voice and asked for this huge 8k boost to enhance her
audibility. Didn't really do the sound any favours, but in the end her
quality shone through anyway.

d

"Iain Churches" wrote in message

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

Well, the sound of Dan the Music Man on the Vinylvend
channel was exactly what I would call harsh. Was he
using a C1000s maybe?

:-)

There are lots of examples of "harsh mixes" Take a
listen to a very good song by Kirsty MacColl. It was a nicely-made
multitrack, but the vinyl single has outrageous
compression and EQ - even more than on the YouTubeclip.
It was loud on the radio, though:-) This was
"fashionable" long before the advent of CD.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1oKU5BJ4bQ


I notice that Iain simply deleted the best and most useful parts of Don's
post - the ones about equalization. Given Iain's phobias about equalization,
this is completely understandable, but not the least bit laudable.

"Iain Churches" wrote in message


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

Yes, that pretty fairly sums up this mic. Bright - too
bright for many applications and harsh is a description
I've often heard.

Bright instruments (glock, celeste etc) sounded quite
good - crisp and clean. No sign of harshness, but this might
show itself more on vocals. A 50's rock'n'roll tenor
saxophone might be fun too:-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7Ymov6JhRE

Two bad jokes - Iain is expecting us to judge a microphone based on the
highly-lossy-encoded audio tracks on a YouTube download, and we have no idea
at all how the file was produced.

Of course
any flavour of mic will find an application, even if it
is "enhanced intelligibility" in a church, oxymoron
though that clearly is.

Yet another bad joke. The common problem with intelligibility in churches is
due to excess reverberation. This *can* be addressed with both microphones
and loudspeakers, but a mic like the C1000 is exactly the opposite of the
correct way to go. I'd give Iain a clue, but he'd just throw it away.

I can't imagine that I would ever find a use for the
presence boost module. I wonder if that merits a 15p
discount? :-)

Yet another bad joke. Iain has no idea about how to obtain a presence boost
with *any* mic using standard audio production tools. Or, do the opposite -
make an extant presence boost go away.

If you want advice about real-world recording or sound reinforcement, you
can listen to Iain to hear very bad advice, or you can make other choices.

"Iain Churches" wrote in message


Some time before Christmas, Don made an interesting
comment in that he was "surprised that the AKG C1000s was still in
production due to its poor reputation"

The dealer offered me a pair for extended evaluation.

IOW Iain suggested the C1000 to some unfortunate poster on UKRA without
himself having ever heard it. Several of us have heard that it is harsh and
too bright.

Since there are literally thousands of microphones on the market, and 100s
that some of us have actually heard, there's no need to pursue a well-known
bad apple any further.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"Iain Churches" wrote in message


Some time before Christmas, Don made an interesting
comment in that he was "surprised that the AKG C1000s was still in
production due to its poor reputation"

The dealer offered me a pair for extended evaluation.

IOW Iain suggested the C1000 to some unfortunate poster on UKRA without
himself having ever heard it.

You are mistaken. I never suggested or recomnmended this mic to
anyone. The subject came up when we were discussing Keith's AKG
tube mic, and Don remarked that he was surprised the C1000s was
still in the catalogue due to its reputation. I asked a colleague in the
UK, who stated it was good for "groove piano". That aroused my
interest, and it went from there.

Several of us have heard that it is harsh and too bright.

But never used it:-)

With some careful placing, I was able to record a tenor
saxophone sound, which as an an engineer, a saxophonist
and a listener is very much to my liking.

There are other applications for which it is well suited -
celeste, tuned percussion, glockenspiel, bell tree etc.

Iain

On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 09:53:57 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:

Several of us have heard that it is harsh and too bright.

But never used it:-)

There's actually a couple of them here. The original model, bought
for use with my first DAT recorder, a Casio something-or-other. I'll
try them later.

Iain Churches wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"Iain Churches" wrote in message


Some time before Christmas, Don made an interesting
comment in that he was "surprised that the AKG C1000s was still in
production due to its poor reputation"
The dealer offered me a pair for extended evaluation.
IOW Iain suggested the C1000 to some unfortunate poster on UKRA without
himself having ever heard it.

You are mistaken. I never suggested or recomnmended this mic to
anyone. The subject came up when we were discussing Keith's AKG
tube mic, and Don remarked that he was surprised the C1000s was
still in the catalogue due to its reputation. I asked a colleague in the
UK, who stated it was good for "groove piano". That aroused my
interest, and it went from there.


It did indeed.

As someone whi is interested (if not fascinated) by the subject of mics,
I have read a fair bit of stuff on the Net and can say there appears to
be not a mic made (now or in the past) that doesn't have both its
fans/enthusiasts and detractors.

Therefore, the obvious only safe way with any mic is to get one and try
it - all this 'opinion of people I trust' BS doesn't work, in my book....

At the end of the day.

When the chips down.

Etc...



Several of us have heard that it is harsh and too bright.

But never used it:-)



Is my point....


With some careful placing, I was able to record a tenor
saxophone sound, which as an an engineer, a saxophonist
and a listener is very much to my liking.

There are other applications for which it is well suited -
celeste, tuned percussion, glockenspiel, bell tree etc.



Is the point of others that I saw time and time again in my researches -
that there is a use for just about every mic ever manufactured, that
isn't broken...

No...??

"Keith G" wrote in message
...
Iain Churches wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"Iain Churches" wrote in message


Some time before Christmas, Don made an interesting
comment in that he was "surprised that the AKG C1000s was still in
production due to its poor reputation"
The dealer offered me a pair for extended evaluation.
IOW Iain suggested the C1000 to some unfortunate poster on UKRA without
himself having ever heard it.

You are mistaken. I never suggested or recomnmended this mic to
anyone. The subject came up when we were discussing Keith's AKG
tube mic, and Don remarked that he was surprised the C1000s was
still in the catalogue due to its reputation. I asked a colleague in the
UK, who stated it was good for "groove piano". That aroused my
interest, and it went from there.


It did indeed.

As someone whi is interested (if not fascinated) by the subject of mics, I
have read a fair bit of stuff on the Net and can say there appears to be
not a mic made (now or in the past) that doesn't have both its
fans/enthusiasts and detractors.

How true. Though there is an old saying, particularly pertinent to
valve Neumann microphones, "The only people who don't like
them are the people who don't have any:-)

There are some pretty good all-rounders, in mics of all
vintages, especially in the higher price ranges, but generaly
speaking there is no "one size fits all" solution.

So, many mics are chosen for specific applications.

Therefore, the obvious only safe way with any mic is to get one and try
it - all this 'opinion of people I trust' BS doesn't work, in my book....

Yes. You can hear after a very short time, if the mic is suitable
for the application in which you are trying it. Just to re-inforce the
impression , it is good practice to mount your "standard mic for that
application" alongside and compare.


Iain

Iain Churches wrote:
"Keith G" wrote in message
...
Iain Churches wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news "Iain Churches" wrote in message


Some time before Christmas, Don made an interesting
comment in that he was "surprised that the AKG C1000s was still in
production due to its poor reputation"
The dealer offered me a pair for extended evaluation.
IOW Iain suggested the C1000 to some unfortunate poster on UKRA without
himself having ever heard it.
You are mistaken. I never suggested or recomnmended this mic to
anyone. The subject came up when we were discussing Keith's AKG
tube mic, and Don remarked that he was surprised the C1000s was
still in the catalogue due to its reputation. I asked a colleague in the
UK, who stated it was good for "groove piano". That aroused my
interest, and it went from there.

It did indeed.

As someone whi is interested (if not fascinated) by the subject of mics, I
have read a fair bit of stuff on the Net and can say there appears to be
not a mic made (now or in the past) that doesn't have both its
fans/enthusiasts and detractors.

How true. Though there is an old saying, particularly pertinent to
valve Neumann microphones, "The only people who don't like
them are the people who don't have any:-)

:-)

If Swim would knuckle down to regular practice on both the piano and the
clart I would get a (suitable) Neumann, just to *have* one!!




There are some pretty good all-rounders, in mics of all
vintages, especially in the higher price ranges, but generaly
speaking there is no "one size fits all" solution.

So, many mics are chosen for specific applications.


Is my understanding.

I have the valve mic used for 'Georgia', a Russian Oktava large
condenser, a 'classic style' ribbon and the USB multipattern large
condenser.

Not because I need them or have different jobs for each one, but just
because I like them!!

:-)

I would like more recording to do - then I could *walk the walk* with
Arny...!!

;-)




Therefore, the obvious only safe way with any mic is to get one and try
it - all this 'opinion of people I trust' BS doesn't work, in my book....

Yes. You can hear after a very short time, if the mic is suitable
for the application in which you are trying it. Just to re-inforce the
impression , it is good practice to mount your "standard mic for that
application" alongside and compare.


Yes, yes - these days, I am placing two of the above mentioned mics
together for the recording sessions we are doing (when we are doing
them) for direct comparisons.

I posted some 'duplex tracks' (one mic on one channnel, another mic on
the other channel) here recently but frankly the total lack of response
makes it not really worth the bother!

But it's fun to do, so WTF - I post 'em anyway!!


:-)