|
Posted by xandcg on
09-27-2019
|
I have mixed feelings about THIS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted by rowuk on
09-28-2019
|
|
"Older" Schoeps and Neumann microphones have a major diaphragm resonance below 30kHz. This can really screw with a digital recording because of aliasing. Newer generation microphones have the resonance over an octave higher.
|
|
|
|
Posted by Paul S on
09-28-2019
|
I'd like to believe anyone thinking of purchasing something like this would do his/her homework before using it!
Paul S
|
|
|
|
Posted by rowuk on
09-29-2019
|
|
Yes Paul, one would assume this BUT we have a generation of digital recordings where „digital“ is blamed for bad glaring sound - caused by the microphone mismatch. They were recorded and mastered by the analog engineers - maybe they were not so golden eared?
|
|
|
|
Posted by Paul S on
09-29-2019
|
Robin, I also hope it's obvious by now to everyone with evolved aesthetics that all the hyperbolic chatter about things is just that. While I do have some old "Direct to Disc" recordings that have decent sound, I have none with performances worth revisiting. Of the famous Fine-recorded Mercury LPs only a few were were of special performances. On the other hand, although it might be hard for some "audiophiles" to understand, Furtwangler's incomparable wartime Beethoven 7 was actually recorded using then-state-of-the-art techniques and equipment, and IMO the sound that has survived is quite likely better for it, and it is certainly not worse for it. I'm pretty sure that when people with evolved musical aesthetics are involved it increases the chances that acceptable performances will be archived. Whether we're talking analog or digital, it helps if people with taste who can hear and who care are involved from start to finish. Surely, results speak for themselves where sound is the issue, and it only ups the ante when musical aesthetics are factored in, as well. Going into recording sessions with a strict agenda is one thing; sticking with it "no matter what" too often overrides more organic concerns. Without getting into Kant, Gadamer, or Searle, surely this is a sort of apriori/background "assumption" where matters of "taste" are concerned? People who are going to use a certain microphone "no matter what" are of an ilk who spoil things aesthetic wherever they are found. The fact that there are acceptable recordings of good or better performances in many formats is proof that it's not just particular equipment that matters most, albeit a screw-up at a critical juncture can bring the whole thing down in a blink. Like the Strad vs. the artist, the "right equipment" only matters if there's someone there who knows how to use it and who can go on from there to evaluate and steer the results accordingly.
Best regards,
Paul S
|
|