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

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

On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 16:27:49 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:

It struck me that the bright characteristic of this mic
could be used to advantage other than in concert
applications, for recording of instruments such a
celeste, or tuned percussion, glockenspiel, bar chimes, bell tree,
etc.
The sound was pleasing - clean, clear and bright,
with adequate gain.

Yes, that pretty fairly sums up this mic. Bright - too
bright for many applications and harsh is a description
I've often heard. Of course any flavour of mic will find
an application, even if it is "enhanced intelligibility"
in a church, oxymoron though that clearly is.


Several reports of the C1000 making most things sound "
glassy and unnatural".

Several reports? So you have no first hand experience?

Neither did you Iain

I have now:-)


and that didn't stop you from recommending it and supporting that
reccomendation.

If you check what I wrote, you will find that I did not
recommend it (how could I?) but asked a colleague
in the UK who stated it was good for "groove piano"
That's what got me interested.

I don't know anybody who has much budget or time for mics with the sort of
reputation that the C1000 has.

Damn its reputation Arny. In chosen applications it performs
well. I think a pair will be very good as rock drum kit overheads.
The body and cage of the mic are very substantial so propbably
less prone to damage. The capsule replacement is far less
expensive than the Neumann equivalents.

This is quite a step back from your initial "the AKG C1000
sound like ****" statement, isn't it?

No, its an obvious clarification. I know very few people who are stupid
enough not to see the relationship between the two statements.

You made them both! Both were judgements on a mic you had
never heard.

Iain

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 in message

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

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

On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 16:27:49 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:

It struck me that the bright characteristic of this
mic could be used to advantage other than in concert
applications, for recording of instruments such a
celeste, or tuned percussion, glockenspiel, bar
chimes, bell tree, etc.
The sound was pleasing - clean, clear and bright,
with adequate gain.

Yes, that pretty fairly sums up this mic. Bright - too
bright for many applications and harsh is a
description I've often heard. Of course any flavour
of mic will find an application, even if it is
"enhanced intelligibility" in a church, oxymoron
though that clearly is.


Several reports of the C1000 making most things sound "
glassy and unnatural".

Several reports? So you have no first hand experience?

Neither did you Iain

I have now:-)

I'm sure you're going to make a big fuss out of this.

and that didn't stop you from recommending it and
supporting that reccomendation.

If you check what I wrote, you will find that I did not
recommend it (how could I?) but asked a colleague
in the UK who stated it was good for "groove piano"
That's what got me interested.

Nice attempt at weaseling out of a bad recommendation. You recommended it as
an alternatve based on one of your esteemed associate's report.

I don't know anybody who has much budget or time for
mics with the sort of reputation that the C1000 has.

Damn its reputation Arny. In chosen applications it
performs well.

Depends on how low your standards are, Iain.

I think a pair will be very good as rock drum kit
overheads.

What distinguishes it from a 100 mics that are also useful in that role, but
lack the C1000's apparent difficulties?

The body and cage of the mic are very
substantial so propbably less prone to damage.

So do many other microphones. I've seen many, many different mics abused,
but none of them were damaged. By many accounts all of them sound better
than the C1000, but are competitively priced.

The
capsule replacement is far less expensive than the
Neumann equivalents.

That's true of about 98% of all microphones.

This is quite a step back from your initial "the AKG
C1000 sound like ****" statement, isn't it?

No, its an obvious clarification. I know very few people
who are stupid enough not to see the relationship
between the two statements.

You made them both! Both were judgements on a mic you had
never heard.

They were based on recommendations from people who recommended other mics as
being superior alternatives. Fool that I am, I did follow their
recommendations and was rewarded with the joys of owning any number of
mid-priced, robust, good-sounding mics.

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!!


:-)

On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 15:17:19 +0000, Keith G
wrote:

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!!

What do you use for stereo?

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 15:17:19 +0000, Keith G
wrote:

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!!

What do you use for stereo?




I don't do stereo now/atm - I had a pair of CAD large condenser; a pair
of SE Electronics small condensers and the Oktava was in a (out of phase
pair) but all I record is solo clarinet and piano (never together - I
was joking about 'doiuble jointed! ;-) and all my recordings atm are
'interim' - I am waiting for Swim to settle down and get back on form.
If I need a stero image when she does, then I will get a pair of truly
*nice* mics but if I needed a stereo image right now, I would probably
pair the AKG valve mic and the Oktava.

Who would ever spot any differences? When is even a *factory pair* two
absolutely **identical** mic..??

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 16:07:37 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article , Don Pearce
wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 09:20:07 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

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.

I knew her quite well, and worked a lot with her father Ewan MacColl.
She was a considerable talent. Sad story.


Well, as long as we have Fairy Tale of New York she won't be forgotten.

Off to work now - strange thing for me to say. Just taken a long term
contract designing a comms system for ESA, so I'm back in the ultra low
noise 30GHz business. Fun times!

Let me know if you want data on fluctuations in atmospheric attenuation and
phase circa 30GHz I did have about a year's worth of data over a 30km link.
The old RA paid for it, but so far as I know never used it as they vanished
into Ofcom! :-)

Slainte,

Jim

Someone else's problem, Jim. Strangely I know someone (now retied) who
did research for ESA years ago on differential attenuation of
orthogonal polarizations at the tropopause.

d

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Who would ever spot any differences? When is even a *factory pair* two
absolutely **identical** mic..??

Near enough. You check this by having two as close as possible side by
side, out of phase one and listen in mono. Different makes or models will
never give the same cancellation.

But that's a pro way of doing it so no use to you.

--
*Never put off until tomorrow what you can avoid altogether *

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