Mic Reviews
Zac Roberts
I've added a bunch of new microphones to my web page since I last
posted here and I could really use some help with reviews... I intend
the site to be a FREE and reliable resource for mic information...
http://www.microphone-review.com/
Help me out with a review if you can...
Thanks
Zigakly
"Zac Roberts" <zmro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1125784321....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
If you're taking reviews from people around here, better moderate them, and
let them know.
SSJVCmag
<n...@no.no> wrote:
>
> "Zac Roberts" <zmro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1125784321....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> Hey-
>>
>> I've added a bunch of new microphones to my web page since I last
>> posted here and I could really use some help with reviews... I intend
>> the site to be a FREE and reliable resource for mic information...
And a BIG revenue-producer advertising boon for Zsoundz!
You are So clever I could just shit...
>>
>> http://www.microphone-review.com/
>>
>> Help me out with a review if you can...
>> Thanks
Help me out with an offer fro what you;re paying...
Thanks.
>
> If you're taking reviews from people around here, better moderate them, and
> let them know.
They are hereby warned...
It's a commercial site...
The reviews aren't credited wherever they came from...
I'd suggest we all log the time it takes to go through the site looking to
see if we've been illegaly quoted and bill the guy.
Don;t forget to sue when he doesn;t pay up.
This is nonsense of the most pompous kind...
Neon Sound
"SSJVCmag" <t...@nozirev.gamnocssj.com> wrote in message
news:BF3FBF77.105A1%t...@nozirev.gamnocssj.com...
>
> And a BIG revenue-producer advertising boon for Zsoundz!
> You are So clever I could just shit...
>
the site. The few cents he gets per hit probably doesn't even come close to
paying the bills.
The next time you pick up a recording technology magazine, and it has
absolutely no advertising, feel free to come back and rebuke him.
NS.
SSJVCmag
Sound" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>
> "SSJVCmag" <t...@nozirev.gamnocssj.com> wrote in message
> news:BF3FBF77.105A1%t...@nozirev.gamnocssj.com...
>>
>> And a BIG revenue-producer advertising boon for Zsoundz!
>> You are So clever I could just shit...
>>
> And your problem is what, exactly? They guy has to pay for the hosting of
> the site. The few cents he gets per hit probably doesn't even come close to
> paying the bills.
Cents-per-hit??
The man runs a pro audio online store... Represents himself here as a
"Hi-im-doing-a-free-review-site"
Richard Crowley
> "SSJVCmag" wrote ...
>> And a BIG revenue-producer advertising boon for Zsoundz!
>> You are So clever I could just shit...
>>
> And your problem is what, exactly? They guy has to pay for the
> hosting of the site. The few cents he gets per hit probably doesn't
> even come close to paying the bills.
>
> The next time you pick up a recording technology magazine, and it has
> absolutely no advertising, feel free to come back and rebuke him.
Last time I looked recording technology magazines weren't
soliciting free editorial content which they then re-published
without attribution.
Pooh Bear
> On 9/3/05 10:26 PM, in article _WsSe.8433$iM2.8...@news.xtra.co.nz, "Neon
> Sound" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > "SSJVCmag" <t...@nozirev.gamnocssj.com> wrote in message
> > news:BF3FBF77.105A1%t...@nozirev.gamnocssj.com...
> >>
> >> And a BIG revenue-producer advertising boon for Zsoundz!
> >> You are So clever I could just shit...
> >>
> > And your problem is what, exactly? They guy has to pay for the hosting of
> > the site. The few cents he gets per hit probably doesn't even come close to
> > paying the bills.
>
> Cents-per-hit??
> The man runs a pro audio online store... Represents himself here as a
> "Hi-im-doing-a-free-review-site"
Doing a whois shows the 2 sites are not connected though.
Graham
Zigakly
"Richard Crowley" <rcro...@xpr7t.net> wrote in message
news:11hl0c4...@corp.supernews.com...
Ok, here's your .025 cents for contributing, less a processing fee of $15,
that will be $14.99975 for the privaledge of being attributed to your
precious review.
I like the fact that it's anonymous. Just wipe off the abusive posts and
keep it open I say.
Scott Dorsey
>"SSJVCmag" <t...@nozirev.gamnocssj.com> wrote in message
>news:BF3FBF77.105A1%t...@nozirev.gamnocssj.com...
>>
>> And a BIG revenue-producer advertising boon for Zsoundz!
>> You are So clever I could just shit...
>>
>And your problem is what, exactly? They guy has to pay for the hosting of
>the site. The few cents he gets per hit probably doesn't even come close to
>paying the bills.
I think his argument is that the folks who did the reviews aren't getting
paid for them.
>The next time you pick up a recording technology magazine, and it has
>absolutely no advertising, feel free to come back and rebuke him.
Yes, but they pay their authors.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Zac Roberts
but...yes there is advertising that I get paid a TINY TINY amound for
and the purpose of that is to keep the site running and if I should
turn some sort of a profit... that would be great too! At the same
time... the only way to generate any traffic to the site is to have
some REAL, valuable content that is actually useful to people who use
microphones. It is not intended to be some lame site that says SM57
and when you get there a million popups launch out at you and your are
redirected to 10 different sites that sell SM57s. It is intended to be
a site that has useful content and if people searching for SM57s find a
good review and decide to click a link to zzounds and buy one... then I
say great! I'm not trying to fool anyone here...
Pooh Bear
Zac Roberts wrote:
Hi Zac,
I took a look at your site. Is it possible to 'credit' the authors of the
reviews in some way ?
It would be nice to know for example what kind of experience the review
writers have. e.g band member, live sound engineer, recording guy -
whatever just to give some more context to the review.
Also I noted that you have some mics on the site with no reviews but yet
the manufacturer's list is not an exhaustive one.
Is it possible to add a model easily ?
I like the idea btw. Mics are a very subjective thing and it's nice to have
a resource where ppl can contribute and other can draw from their
experience. Good luck with the idea.
Graham
Danny Taddei
You need to ask permission to use those reviews. You will probably get
a yes from everyone you ask but if you do no have permission, you open
the door to a suit for copyright infringement.
Most people would be honored to be re-posted but you do need to ask,
and get permission.
Richard Crowley
> I like the fact that it's anonymous.
How is that? How do you know that the "reviewers" have ever
seen another similar microphone to compare to? (Or even seen
the microphone being reviewed, for that matter?) Or what their
recording experience is?
An annonymous review is no better than a random grafitti
in a public restroom.
Richard Crowley
Hint: Annonymous reviews are not useful.
philicorda
> Neon Sound <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>>"SSJVCmag" <t...@nozirev.gamnocssj.com> wrote in message
>>news:BF3FBF77.105A1%t...@nozirev.gamnocssj.com...
>>>
>>> And a BIG revenue-producer advertising boon for Zsoundz!
>>> You are So clever I could just shit...
>>>
>>And your problem is what, exactly? They guy has to pay for the hosting of
>>the site. The few cents he gets per hit probably doesn't even come close to
>>paying the bills.
>
> I think his argument is that the folks who did the reviews aren't getting
> paid for them.
There are also many web based boards getting ad revenue from
everything posted on rec.audio.pro. They often don't make it clear that
the messages came from usenet, or that original posters have never heard
of the message board they appear to be posting on.
I am apparently a Tetris and Space Invaders champion on the MIDIBuddy
board, as are you.
Scott Dorsey
>
>There are also many web based boards getting ad revenue from
>everything posted on rec.audio.pro. They often don't make it clear that
>the messages came from usenet, or that original posters have never heard
>of the message board they appear to be posting on.
Yes, I have noticed this recently, and it is really, really bad news.
I think this is a fairly new phenomenon and I am not sure what is behind
it, but we have already had a few drop-ins in this newsgroup from folks
who discovered these sites.
>I am apparently a Tetris and Space Invaders champion on the MIDIBuddy
>board, as are you.
Wow.
Ty Ford
(in article <1125784321....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>):
OK, let's take a look at the review of the AT2020, line by line.....BTW, I
like this mic myself and have also reviewed it. A review I was paid by the
publisher to do.
--------PASTE------
The Audio Technica AT 2020 is a nice addirion (SPELLING ERROR) to the mic
locker. After discussion with the guys at AT I decided to try one. I
(SPELLING ERROR) works well for vocals for the home studio. It dosen't
(SPELLING ERROR) sound as good as my U87's but it retails under $200. ($99,
ACTUALLY)
We then tried it at several different applications ib (SPELLING ERROR) the
studio. Both Electric and Acoustic guitars, worked well. (I'M GLAD THEY
WORKED WELL. HOW DID THE MIC DO? WHERE DID YOU PUT IT? WHAT DID YOU PLUG IT
INTO?)
Overhead drums, well again. High Hat, bingo. Hand percussion, no (SPELLING
ERROR) as good as the AKG414's, but pretty decent. (WHY AND WHY NOT?) Then we
tried it on a variety of horns. Sounded good, no problem with distortion on
saxes, trumpets or bones. It does require phantom power. I would definitely
recommend this mic for studio work. Then we took it out for some live gig
work. They did amazingly well (WHAT DOES AMAZINGLY WELL ACTUALLY MEAN?) on
live drums (even on a guys kit that was pain to mic the individual rack toms
because he has a set of roto toms located right above them), one mic above
the roto worked great live. Live chorus worked well with these. Barbershop
groups worked well. (HOW WAS THAT DONE? MAY WE HEAR A CLIP?)
I guess any place I want to use a condensor this mic worked great. Since it
is a large diaphragm you have to be concerned with wind noise. (EXCUSE ME?
FIRST, IT'S ROUGHLY 2/3", SO NOT AN LDC. SECOND, DIAPHRAGM SIZE HAS NOTHING
TO DO WITH WIND SENSITIVITY) But sofar so good. The mic takes around 145 db
level without distortion so it's equally at home on the rock band as well as
the acoustic scene. I now have six of these and have been using them for
several months. I will probably buy more of them. Can't beat the
price/performance ratio.
Date Reviewed: 2005-09-03 06:00:37
---------------
I guess that since now ANYONE can afford a condenser mic, ANYONE can also
review them.
For more reviews, visit. http://tinyurl.com/ahbh3
Regards,
Ty Ford
-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Ty Ford
(in article <1125843062....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
Danny, I love ya, but PLEASE!
"Honored to be reposted?" That's utter crap promulgated by conniving people
who want to use your intellectual property without paying for it.
The first commission I get from a publication is sometimes contracted as a
"work for hire." That would mean they own it and I can't do anything with it
later.
If you're a smart technical writer, you never give up the copyright. You can
then license the work elsewhere. You need at least that kind of deal to put
the review YOU WROTE up on your own website. It's similar to syndication.
Open a newspaper in 20 different cities and you're likely to see some of the
same stories. It's how writers make a living.
Ty Ford
(in article <11hm182...@corp.supernews.com>):
Right, I know of any number of anonymous reviews that were either written by
the company (if they were positive) or by the competition (if they were
negative.) The guys at the manufacturers have told me this many times.
A big part of the problem is that reviews USED to be written and read by
engineers who had a lot of experience (called a professional market) and
could tell shit from Shinola. The marketplace has changed radically over the
last 10 years.
Now, a huge number of people (called a consumer market) with almost no
engineering background can afford the gear, but they don't have the technical
chops to be able to separate the truth from the marketing hype.
They only know one thing -- PRICE. As a result, manufacturers have made
products to fit trigger prices rather than making products that are even
better, but that the consumer market can not afford.
It's called "The Dumbing Down."
Danny Taddei
I would want to be paid for my work, so -Honored if paid- might be a
better way to put it. I didn't really mean that someone like you would
give away their work. I can imagine loads of kids that would love to
see their name up somewhere, but I would need to be paid for my
writings as well.
Danny Taddei
large part of his job was to sit in user groups and talk up Cubase
while talking down the others.
Now, I like and use Cubase but that isn't the point of course. The
point is to confirm that anonymous reviews are worthless.
Pooh Bear
> philicorda <phili...@localhost.com> wrote:
> >
> >There are also many web based boards getting ad revenue from
> >everything posted on rec.audio.pro. They often don't make it clear that
> >the messages came from usenet, or that original posters have never heard
> >of the message board they appear to be posting on.
>
> Yes, I have noticed this recently, and it is really, really bad news.
> I think this is a fairly new phenomenon and I am not sure what is behind
> it, but we have already had a few drop-ins in this newsgroup from folks
> who discovered these sites.
I've discovered my posts on a Saab drivers' forum. Not r.a.p posts from here
of course !
Graham
Zigakly
> writers have. e.g band member, live sound engineer, recording guy -
> whatever just to give some more context to the review.
I think it's better for the reviewer to be specific about the usage they've
had and how it performed. If it just says "occupation: musician" and "it
sucks!" then that review should be stricken so the overall ratings aren't
askew. But if it says "I borrowed this from a friend and I couldn't get
enough monitor without feedback, where my [other mic] did" then it should
stay, even though the reviewer may not be a competent engineer, at least it
expresses usage and performance. No one review should be taken at face
value, but rather the overall impression of several reviews.
Zigakly
"Danny Taddei" <palmtre...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1125843062....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
It's way too obvious that submitting a review means it will be published on
the site, so there's no way in hell someone couls sue, especially since the
anonymous nature of the site makes it hard just to prove who actually made
the review.
Zigakly
If you can't distinguish personal bias from technical merit, you're never
going to shop well, even if you never read a review. My only concern for
the anon posts is that it will turn into a discussion forum where people
retort other's reviews and lose the plot. Sound familiar?
Zigakly
> "Zigakly" wrote ...
> > I like the fact that it's anonymous.
>
> How is that? How do you know that the "reviewers" have ever
> seen another similar microphone to compare to? (Or even seen
> the microphone being reviewed, for that matter?) Or what their
> recording experience is?
You can tell by the nature of the post to a reasonable enough degree. If
you don't want to support the site, don't post a review. If you can't tell
what's uninformed jargon or commercial plants, don't read the reviews. If
you can appreciate the prospect of an unbiased forum for the comparison of
microphone experiences from all types of musicians and techs, jump in, the
water's warm.
> An annonymous review is no better than a random grafitti
> in a public restroom.
Really. My posts here are anonymous. For a good time call...
Zigakly
"Ty Ford" <tyre...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:uNmdnbhjTKb...@comcast.com...
ANYONE can also judge how much credibility the reviewer has. Do you suggest
that EVERYONE should buy equipment based on whether the reviewer was paid or
not? Is a Ty Ford recommendation a guarantee that the product will be the
right one for the job?
Bob Cain
Richard Crowley wrote:
> Hint: Annonymous reviews are not useful.
Neither are attributed ones. Talking about mics is like
dancing about architecture. What pedigree qualifies one for
the job?
Gimme accurate and comprehensive measurements any day.
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."
A. Einstein
Chris Hornbeck
> My posts here are anonymous.
And in that context, you might consider how much
credibility and general street cred is given here,
in an established forum, to an anonymous Google
poster.
FWIW; 's all i'm sayin'.
Good fortune,
Chris Hornbeck
Pooh Bear
Bob Cain wrote:
> Richard Crowley wrote:
>
> > Hint: Annonymous reviews are not useful.
>
> Neither are attributed ones. Talking about mics is like
> dancing about architecture. What pedigree qualifies one for
> the job?
>
> Gimme accurate and comprehensive measurements any day.
Oh, I reckon subjective assessments are valuable too. Even if they do
expose the inherent flaws of a mic - like the SM58 ! ;-)
Graham
Scott Dorsey
>
>Neither are attributed ones. Talking about mics is like
>dancing about architecture. What pedigree qualifies one for
>the job?
>
>Gimme accurate and comprehensive measurements any day.
I hate to say it, but I have never actually seen truly comprehensive
measurements on any microphone. And I have made a lot of microphone
measurements over the years.
Harvey Gerst
No, it's not a guarantee, but it's always a competent review, by a
competent engineer, and I trust Ty's ears. Although I may not always
agree with his findings, I've always found Ty's reviews to be very
thorough, thoughtful, helpful, and complete.
Would I trust an anonymous reviewer who may only own (or have a limited
amount of experience with) the one mic he's reviewing? I don't think
so.
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
Arny Krueger
news:dfgda0$3sd$1...@panix2.panix.com
> Bob Cain <arc...@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
>>
>> Neither are attributed ones. Talking about mics is like
>> dancing about architecture. What pedigree qualifies one
>> for the job?
>>
>> Gimme accurate and comprehensive measurements any day.
>
> I hate to say it, but I have never actually seen truly
> comprehensive measurements on any microphone. And I have
> made a lot of microphone measurements over the years.
A comprehensive set of measurements might include 1/12
octave frequency response (120 points per set) measurements
on 10 degree intervals in 3-dimensional space. I think
that's 155,520 points.
Ty Ford
(in article <dffutm$gep$1...@domitilla.aioe.org>):
Of course if someone wanted to copy a review from somewhere else and post it
on the site anonymously.........
Ty Ford
(in article <dfg8l...@enews3.newsguy.com>):
>
>
> Richard Crowley wrote:
>
>> Hint: Annonymous reviews are not useful.
>
> Neither are attributed ones. Talking about mics is like
> dancing about architecture. What pedigree qualifies one for
> the job?
>
> Gimme accurate and comprehensive measurements any day.
>
>
> Bob
>
Knowing Bob the way I do, I'll only take mild offense at his statement 'cause
I don't think he was aiming for me.
Ty Ford
(in article <qqanh1p1hrb0ndfof...@4ax.com>):
Persactly!. We have met the enemy and he is us.
Ty (Pogo) Ford
Ty Ford
(in article <dfg0nl$ju0$1...@domitilla.aioe.org>):
>> I guess that since now ANYONE can afford a condenser mic, ANYONE can also
>> review them.
>
> ANYONE can also judge how much credibility the reviewer has. Do you suggest
> that EVERYONE should buy equipment based on whether the reviewer was paid or
> not? Is a Ty Ford recommendation a guarantee that the product will be the
> right one for the job?
Please show me in any of my reviews where I make that sort of pronouncement
without caveats.
BTW, what do you do for a living?
Ty Ford
(in article <u0snh11njf6bthk1r...@4ax.com>):
>> ANYONE can also judge how much credibility the reviewer has. Do you suggest
>> that EVERYONE should buy equipment based on whether the reviewer was paid or
>> not? Is a Ty Ford recommendation a guarantee that the product will be the
>> right one for the job?
>
> No, it's not a guarantee, but it's always a competent review, by a
> competent engineer, and I trust Ty's ears. Although I may not always
> agree with his findings, I've always found Ty's reviews to be very
> thorough, thoughtful, helpful, and complete.
>
> Would I trust an anonymous reviewer who may only own (or have a limited
> amount of experience with) the one mic he's reviewing? I don't think
> so.
> Harvey Gerst
> Indian Trail Recording Studio
> http://www.ITRstudio.com/
Thanks Harv. back at you.
The Internet has spawned many amazing things; some fact, some fiction.
Anecdotal rather than technical information can be helpful in determining
what mic to choose. I usually meld the two in a way that seems to make sense
based on the immediate context. That usually confirms or raises a question
about the published specifications.
Besides, we all know that specs alone don't tell the story, right?
Besides, besides, even if intense technical tests were done, many folks
probably wouldn't know what they meant. I lose interest pretty quickly
myself.
Besides, besides, besides, there's a time and word limit to reviews. How much
time do you think it takes to review a mic? (Actually read one of mine and
tell me.)
How much more time and equipment would it take to go deeper. I'm lucky to get
800 words to review a mic. Real, in depth stuff eats that up pretty quickly.
Scott Dorsey
>> comprehensive measurements on any microphone. And I have
>> made a lot of microphone measurements over the years.
>
>A comprehensive set of measurements might include 1/12
>octave frequency response (120 points per set) measurements
>on 10 degree intervals in 3-dimensional space. I think
>that's 155,520 points.
No, that's not enough. I want impulse response at each of those positions.
Waterfall plots at 10-degree intervals would make me happy, I think.
Scott Dorsey
>
> that EVERYONE should buy equipment based on whether the reviewer was paid or
> not? Is a Ty Ford recommendation a guarantee that the product will be the
> right one for the job?
See, I often disagree with Ty about microphones. In fact, I think most of
the time I disagree with Ty about microphones. But I know how I disagree
with him, and when I see a review with his name on it, I start out with
some basic knowledge of how my attitudes differ from his. This just comes
from a decade of reading Ty's reviews.
If Ty's reviews were anonymous, I wouldn't know this. I might read partway
through one, read his comparison with a 77DX and discount the rest of the
review completely, if I didn't know it was Ty and know that he has a very
different notion of how aggressive a vocal sound ought to be than I do.
Because I have this basic knowledge of Ty's biases (or maybe my biases
with respect to his), I find his reviews very useful. If I didn't have it,
if I didn't know the reviewer, if the review was anonymous so I had no
baseline, I wouldn't find the review useful at all, no matter how good it
was.
When I do microphone reviews, I try very hard to explain my basic biases
and what I tend to like and why. And I try to do comparisons with other
microphones that people might have. This is, however, a lot of work and
takes up a lot of column space. You can't really do it completely and
often you can't do it at all.
SSJVCmag
Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
Which sounds daunting until you think of how that'd easily be represented in
a color 3D graphic.
BOSE does this to some degree.
Richard Crowley
> "Arny Krueger" wrote:
>> A comprehensive set of measurements might include 1/12
>> octave frequency response (120 points per set) measurements
>> on 10 degree intervals in 3-dimensional space. I think
>> that's 155,520 points.
>>
>>
> Which sounds daunting until you think of how that'd easily be
> represented in
> a color 3D graphic.
>
> BOSE does this to some degree.
LOL :-) Perhaps you meant the Bose marketing gerbs?
Bob Cain
Ty Ford wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 21:57:07 -0400, Bob Cain wrote
> (in article <dfg8l...@enews3.newsguy.com>):
>
>
>>
>>Richard Crowley wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hint: Annonymous reviews are not useful.
>>
>>Neither are attributed ones. Talking about mics is like
>>dancing about architecture. What pedigree qualifies one for
>>the job?
>>
>>Gimme accurate and comprehensive measurements any day.
>>
>>
>>Bob
>>
>
>
> Knowing Bob the way I do, I'll only take mild offense at his statement 'cause
> I don't think he was aiming for me.
Right. Just displaying my bias against subjective
evaluation of something which doesn't even have a meaningful
consensus vocabulary. (It's much like describing the
differential taste of various butterscotch concoctions.) I
can't see how a reviewer can begin to convey what
measurement can, despite any experience he might have
listening to some of them on some source material.
The limited number of things that can actually be conveyed
with word boils down to very little and we are left mainly
with "I like it" or "I don't like it". I have a hard time
understanding how any particular individual's opinion on
that can be given a lot more weight than any other's. Hell,
individual hearing responses almost certainly vary as much
as those of microphones and are highly sensitive to
listening level. Finally, with listening a reviewer is
limited to evaluating the output of a speaker in an
idiosyncratic setting which itself is far less ideal in most
every way than is a microphone.
This criticism applies, of course, to review of many things
other than microphones.
Lorin David Schultz
reading, how do I know how to weight it?
For example, I've read comments from people around here, then listened
to the items they were describing. From that I've been able to
determine who has tastes and ears similar to my own. I've also
discovered that certain people seem to hear the world in a MUCH
different way than I do. I read their comments in a different context.
Further, I've discovered that the people who seem to like raving the
most are usually the people who know the least. The person jumping up
and down about the new MicLone Cheeperstill Deluxe is usually comparing
it to his next best mic: the battered SM57 he bought at the pawn shop.
Obviously opinions from relative newbies are valid, but I like to know a
little about the writer's background so I know what (s)he means by "best
mic I've ever heard!" <g>
--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good
(Remove spamblock to reply)
"Zigakly" <n...@no.no> wrote in message
news:dfe64q$kbb$1...@domitilla.aioe.org...
>
> "Richard Crowley" <rcro...@xpr7t.net> wrote in message
> news:11hl0c4...@corp.supernews.com...
>> "Neon Sound" wrote ...
>> > "SSJVCmag" wrote ...
>> >> And a BIG revenue-producer advertising boon for Zsoundz!
>> >> You are So clever I could just shit...
>> >>
>> > And your problem is what, exactly? They guy has to pay for the
>> > hosting of the site. The few cents he gets per hit probably
>> > doesn't
>> > even come close to paying the bills.
>> >
>> > The next time you pick up a recording technology magazine, and it
>> > has
>> > absolutely no advertising, feel free to come back and rebuke him.
>>
>> Last time I looked recording technology magazines weren't
>> soliciting free editorial content which they then re-published
>> without attribution.
>
> Ok, here's your .025 cents for contributing, less a processing fee of
> $15,
> that will be $14.99975 for the privaledge of being attributed to your
> precious review.
>
> I like the fact that it's anonymous. Just wipe off the abusive posts
> and
> keep it open I say.
>
>
Lorin David Schultz
>
> I have a hard time understanding how any particular individual's
> opinion on that can be given a lot more weight than any other's.
The "how" is history and comparison. In fact, Ty's reviews are an
excellent example of exactly that in my case.
I read some of Ty's reviews of mics I know well. His observations were
consistent with my own. I then went and listened to items he described
that I hadn't heard before, and, again, found that my own impressions
were quite similar to his. That suggests that my listening habits and
preferences are similar to his, so his reviews should have merit for me.
Whether or not they would for someone else depends on their tastes and
habits.
I've also gone through the same exercise with some other people here,
and found that they enjoy things I wouldn't listen to without a gun to
my head. Guess how I weight *their* reviews?
Attribution may not be much use if you don't know the reviewer, but it's
great if you do.
Scott Dorsey
>Why would anonymity appeal to you? Without knowing whose opinion I'm
>reading, how do I know how to weight it?
The advantage of anonymity is that some people might be willing to make
some statements anonymously that they wouldn't be willing to make in
public. For example, I am on NDA by a couple microphone manufacturers
about some interesting stuff that I can't talk about. And if I mention
A&S McKay much more, they'll probably threaten to sue me again. So you
will not, for example, see any Recording magazine review of the new
Chinese "Oktava" microphones with my name on it.
This is countered by the fact that, if I did post anonymously with enough
information, people would probably know it was me. And if I posted
anonymously without enough information, nobody would know it was me and
so they wouldn't pay too much attention to the review.
>For example, I've read comments from people around here, then listened
>to the items they were describing. From that I've been able to
>determine who has tastes and ears similar to my own. I've also
>discovered that certain people seem to hear the world in a MUCH
>different way than I do. I read their comments in a different context.
Precisely. This more than outweighs any additional ability to speak
freely that anonymity might provide.
hank alrich
> I can't see how a reviewer can begin to convey what measurement can,
> despite any experience he might have listening to some of them on some
> source material.
I have no ability to hear measurements, and I have found no real
correlation between the specs I read for mics and the results these mics
give me. I can understand what Ty says about the way a mic sounds to
him.
> The limited number of things that can actually be conveyed
> with word boils down to very little and we are left mainly
> with "I like it" or "I don't like it".
And the sound of a measurement is...??
> I have a hard time
> understanding how any particular individual's opinion on
> that can be given a lot more weight than any other's.
Then listen to the man's work and decide for yourself. People who use
these tools nearly everyday and get outstanding results have often been
able to inform me about the usefullness or not of many different audio
tools.
--
ha
Ty Ford
(in article <1h2gt1v.1b6t2vn1mb6ysmN%walk...@thegrid.net>):
> Bob Cain wrote:
>
>> I can't see how a reviewer can begin to convey what measurement can,
>> despite any experience he might have listening to some of them on some
>> source material.
>
> I have no ability to hear measurements, and I have found no real
> correlation between the specs I read for mics and the results these mics
> give me. I can understand what Ty says about the way a mic sounds to
> him.
>
I think I somehow try to use language that transcends the typical
communicational problems. I also have found that comparison without claiming
one is better than the other seems to help as a way of explaining what a new
mic sounds like.
When I started reviewing that way it raised some eyebrows. Publishers were
concerned that I'd be dissing one mic or the other. I told them that I wasn't
going after the "this good, that bad" angle as much as I was using the
relatively known aspects of one mic as a point of comparison. I was hoping
that, as a reader, if you knew A and I communicated about how B was different
than A, that it would help the reader vector in on what B was. It seems to
have worked.
As Scott Dorsey (Thanks, btw, Scott) mentions, he knows my preferences and
has constructed a Dorsey-Ford offset filter. Being the handy guy he is,
perhaps he can do that for anyone. ...and "The
Dorsey-Ford-Semantic-Review-Filter" was born.
Regards,
Ty
Chris Hornbeck
wrote:
>As Scott Dorsey (Thanks, btw, Scott) mentions, he knows my preferences and
>has constructed a Dorsey-Ford offset filter. Being the handy guy he is,
>perhaps he can do that for anyone. ...and "The
>Dorsey-Ford-Semantic-Review-Filter" was born.
*This* is why I read the newsgroup.
Thanks to all,
Chris Hornbeck
Chris Hornbeck
Should have included "Because it's Godardian!"
Arf.
Chris Hornbeck
Zigakly
I would want some measurement of the mic's dynamic linearity, so take those
measurements at different SPL's as well. I'm certain that the non-linear
dynamics of mics is a major issue, but I've never seen data on it anywhere.
Zigakly
>
> And in that context, you might consider how much
> credibility and general street cred is given here,
> in an established forum, to an anonymous Google
> poster.
>
> FWIW; 's all i'm sayin'.
A rose by any other name (or none at all) would smell as sweet. I call them
as I see them. Anyone experienced enough to make a thorough, concise,
intelligible review probably isn't lying. The usual caveats apply as well
of course, but name recognition isn't important to me. In fact I marginally
discredit anyone who posts personal information publicly unnecessarily. (no
offense to those who do)
Zigakly
> On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 19:42:53 -0400, Zigakly wrote
> (in article <dfg0nl$ju0$1...@domitilla.aioe.org>):
>
> >> I guess that since now ANYONE can afford a condenser mic, ANYONE can
also
> >> review them.
> >
> > ANYONE can also judge how much credibility the reviewer has. Do you
suggest
> > that EVERYONE should buy equipment based on whether the reviewer was
paid or
> > not? Is a Ty Ford recommendation a guarantee that the product will be
the
> > right one for the job?
>
> Please show me in any of my reviews where I make that sort of
pronouncement
> without caveats.
I never said you did. My point is that if you put your name on that AT2020
review and the other guy's name on your review, it doesn't make either
review more or less valid on its face. If the two reviews are side-by-side
but unattributed, anyone that can't determine which is the more competent
analysis shouldn't be making a purchase decision based on reviews, anonymous
or not. I don't imply that you shouldn't be paid for your work, but it's
not the fact that you're being paid that makes your reviews credible.
> BTW, what do you do for a living?
Wouldn't that be ironic if I tried to qualify my response by
name-dropping...
Richard Crowley
> Wouldn't that be ironic if I tried to qualify my response by
> name-dropping...
Perhaps you could start with your own?
Many of us have reservations about people who hide behind
aliases, whether consciously or subconsciensously.
Zigakly
Maybe the reviewers need reviewing...
I think in this regard you're somewhat spoiled by the rappore you have with
Ty. Because of it you can take more advantage of his work than a typical
review. I don't think it's a reasonable expectation of reviews on such a
casual basis as the website in question. There are many aspects to mics
that don't require such fine detail and assurance of accuracy. If user
reviews are publishable for cars, they're valid for mics to a similar
degree. Godspell? No. Useful? Sure, why not.
Zigakly
I'm not hiding, but I'm not waving my dick around either. I consider the
unnecessary publication of personal information to be irresponsible. If I
lose points for that, so be it.
Bob Cain
hank alrich wrote:
> Bob Cain wrote:
>
>
>> I can't see how a reviewer can begin to convey what measurement can,
>>despite any experience he might have listening to some of them on some
>>source material.
>
>
> I have no ability to hear measurements, and I have found no real
> correlation between the specs I read for mics and the results these mics
> give me.
That's because there are no standards for comprehensive
testing which even private testers can apply. If there
were, and one could find the results for the various mics
then the correlation would begin to happen and they would be
much more accurate than what can be accomplished with verbage.
I've done quite a lot of (accurate) frequency response
characterisation of things I have on hand and have come to
feel I can tell a good deal from a good set of data. (By
frequency response I mean the complex response which yields
the time domain aspects as well via things like the STFT
which gives a watefall plot.)
We know that what comes from the manufacturers is minimal
add copy and that, of course, correlates with very little.
> I can understand what Ty says about the way a mic sounds to
> him.
You've apparently learned his vocabulary and can do some
correlation with your own experience. Still, there really
isn't all that much that can be said about the wide and
detailed differences among them. Too much information
compression.
>>The limited number of things that can actually be conveyed
>>with word boils down to very little and we are left mainly
>>with "I like it" or "I don't like it".
>
>
> And the sound of a measurement is...??
That's the point. A comprehensive procedure that would
disclose a great deal about mic performance could be
established but hasn't. I think David Josephson was heading
such a standards committee but I've not heard what came out
of it.
>> I have a hard time
>>understanding how any particular individual's opinion on
>>that can be given a lot more weight than any other's.
>
> Then listen to the man's work and decide for yourself.
I'm not sure which work you refer to.
For me, even a discography wouldn't help much because his
vocabulary is idiosyncratic as is every reviewer's. To get
anywhere with reviews I'd have to do as you have, get
instances of the things he (or anyone who does it) has
reviewed and compare his verbage with my own impressions but
if one has that option, what is the point of reading reviews?
> People who use
> these tools nearly everyday and get outstanding results have often been
> able to inform me about the usefullness or not of many different audio
> tools.
To be sure. I'm just skeptical about effectively describing
in language the more esoteric and subjective aspects of
complex widgets like transducers. Especially when
transducers have to be cascaded to get at something to describe.
Bob Cain
Ty Ford wrote:
> As Scott Dorsey (Thanks, btw, Scott) mentions, he knows my preferences and
> has constructed a Dorsey-Ford offset filter. Being the handy guy he is,
> perhaps he can do that for anyone. ...and "The
> Dorsey-Ford-Semantic-Review-Filter" was born.
LOL! :-)
Arny Krueger
> I would want some measurement of the mic's dynamic
> linearity, so take those measurements at different SPL's
> as well. I'm certain that the non-linear dynamics of
> mics is a major issue, but I've never seen data on it
> anywhere.
Nonlinear performance of mics is generally a nit compared to
the nonlinear performance of speakers.
This is not to say that a highly sensitive mic placed close
to a loud source can't clip its internal electronics.
However a lot of mics that have that exposure, have built-in
attenuators.
Ty Ford
(in article <dflu3b$6ba$1...@domitilla.aioe.org>):
>> When I do microphone reviews, I try very hard to explain my basic biases
>> and what I tend to like and why. And I try to do comparisons with other
>> microphones that people might have. This is, however, a lot of work and
>> takes up a lot of column space. You can't really do it completely and
>> often you can't do it at all.
>> --scott
>
> Maybe the reviewers need reviewing...
>
> I think in this regard you're somewhat spoiled by the rappore you have with
> Ty. Because of it you can take more advantage of his work than a typical
> review. I don't think it's a reasonable expectation of reviews on such a
> casual basis as the website in question. There are many aspects to mics
> that don't require such fine detail and assurance of accuracy. If user
> reviews are publishable for cars, they're valid for mics to a similar
> degree. Godspell? No. Useful? Sure, why not.
I'd like to think that my approach to reviews is NOT typical and that's what
makes them work better. Lord knows I try. one mag I write for made a point of
telling its new reviewers to "Look at Ty's stuff. Do it that way."
At least you know where I'm coming from. At least you know I'm not a shill
filling the web with BS. I'm talking about two different things here.
Firstly, the pure shilling for companies; the hyping of their stuff or
dissing of competition's wrapped in casual semantics and tossed out as
anecdotal info. This happens all the time.
Secondly, the actual language used in these messages and their sheer
abundance. "These mics are the BOMB, man!" Which tells the reader pretty much
nothing. A lot of marketing hype makes it's way to the net this way. Throw
enough of it up there, though, and soon you'll start believing an Oktava is
actually a viable alternative to a Schoeps.
But back to your question, "Useful?" Consider the source. Anonymity disallows
you to consider the source. In a blacked out gay bath house you might not
care who's tugging on your dick. (Does that still go on?) If you're tugging
on your own dick in the dark or in the studio, it doesn't matter so much
because you're already a legend in your own mind.
When you're actually charging people to make good recordings, it behooves you
to put your dick in your back pocket, put your best shit up and know what to
do with it.
Scatalogisms notwithstanding, I hope you get my point.
Regards,
Ty Ford
(in article <dflt3u$5e1$1...@domitilla.aioe.org>):
>> Please show me in any of my reviews where I make that sort of
> pronouncement
>> without caveats.
>
> I never said you did. My point is that if you put your name on that AT2020
> review and the other guy's name on your review, it doesn't make either
> review more or less valid on its face.
I beg to differ. The FCC license on my wall is smirking as well.
If the two reviews are side-by-side
> but unattributed, anyone that can't determine which is the more competent
> analysis shouldn't be making a purchase decision based on reviews, anonymous
> or not. I don't imply that you shouldn't be paid for your work, but it's
> not the fact that you're being paid that makes your reviews credible.
It speaks to my credibility. Any hoo haa can post on the net. Getting paid to
write a good review is something entirely different. Of course there's added
value there.
>> BTW, what do you do for a living?
>
> Wouldn't that be ironic if I tried to qualify my response by
> name-dropping...
Oh PLEEEEASE! Wash your hands before and after you type something like that
again. And while you're at it, send out monagrammed tissues so we can all
wipe the spew from our screens and keyboards after reading your last line.
Oh I get it, you're into provoking (which is different and less interesting
that being provocative). Try rec.audio.provoke, it's a more challenging read.
Zigakly
> > linearity, so take those measurements at different SPL's
> > as well. I'm certain that the non-linear dynamics of
> > mics is a major issue, but I've never seen data on it
> > anywhere.
>
> Nonlinear performance of mics is generally a nit compared to
> the nonlinear performance of speakers.
>
> This is not to say that a highly sensitive mic placed close
> to a loud source can't clip its internal electronics.
> However a lot of mics that have that exposure, have built-in
> attenuators.
I was refering to a compressive or expansive characteristic at various
frequencies, well short of the mic's max SPL. Measurement mics are chosen
for their linearity, so they can act as a comparison base, whether the
speaker is consistent or not.
Zigakly
...and is easily recognized by the discerning reader. Practice up by
reading Mackie's website.
> Secondly, the actual language used in these messages and their sheer
> abundance. "These mics are the BOMB, man!" Which tells the reader pretty
much
> nothing. A lot of marketing hype makes it's way to the net this way. Throw
> enough of it up there, though, and soon you'll start believing an Oktava
is
> actually a viable alternative to a Schoeps.
...again easily recognized.
Both marketing hype and incompetence are evident, and should be taken into
account, but where a reviewer seems genuine enough, it can offer handy info.
Should you consider it cast-in-stone? No, but for example if a reviewer
cites a weakness in a mic you're considering, and you test for that weakness
to find it is there, it doesn't matter what the reviewer's name is or
whether they were paid.
If someone has the experience and expertise to find such flaws as well as
exceptional characteristics on a consistent basis, then they certainly
deserve to be paid, and it's not like an anonymous review site is going to
put them out of business.
> But back to your question, "Useful?" Consider the source. Anonymity
disallows
> you to consider the source. In a blacked out gay bath house you might not
> care who's tugging on your dick. (Does that still go on?) If you're
tugging
> on your own dick in the dark or in the studio, it doesn't matter so much
> because you're already a legend in your own mind.
>
> When you're actually charging people to make good recordings, it behooves
you
> to put your dick in your back pocket, put your best shit up and know what
to
> do with it.
"It looks just like a Telefunken U47" "With leather?"
I think the comparison between browsing amateur reviews of microphones to
fondling male genetalia in the dark is a bit much. What's wrong with
renting a mic that's well-regarded among anonymous reviews?
> Scatalogisms notwithstanding, I hope you get my point.
I sure hope I do, or else I'll have to wear a condom for the next retort. I
might get hearing aids!
[ba-dum tshhh]
Arny Krueger
>>> I would want some measurement of the mic's dynamic
>>> linearity, so take those measurements at different SPL's
>>> as well. I'm certain that the non-linear dynamics of
>>> mics is a major issue, but I've never seen data on it
>>> anywhere.
>>
>> Nonlinear performance of mics is generally a nit
>> compared to the nonlinear performance of speakers.
>>
>> This is not to say that a highly sensitive mic placed
>> close to a loud source can't clip its internal
>> electronics. However a lot of mics that have that
>> exposure, have built-in attenuators.
> I was refering to a compressive or expansive
> characteristic at various frequencies, well short of the
> mic's max SPL.
I think you'll find that your first challenge is finding a
speaker that is clean enough to point the finger at the mic.
>Measurement mics are chosen for their
> linearity, so they can act as a comparison base, whether
> the speaker is consistent or not.
Let's distinguish between linear response in the frequency
domain and linear amplitude response. Measurement mics need
to be linear in the frequency domain, but they don't
necessarily need to have especially linear amplitude
response or handle really high acoustic levels, not that the
better ones don't.
Zigakly
> > pronouncement
> >> without caveats.
> >
> > I never said you did. My point is that if you put your name on that
AT2020
> > review and the other guy's name on your review, it doesn't make either
> > review more or less valid on its face.
>
> I beg to differ. The FCC license on my wall is smirking as well.
So you're saying the other review with your name on it becomes more valid?
Would it actually get published, spelling errors and all, just because your
name is on it? Somehow I suspect an editor would send it back along with a
"get well" card.
> If the two reviews are side-by-side
> > but unattributed, anyone that can't determine which is the more
competent
> > analysis shouldn't be making a purchase decision based on reviews,
anonymous
> > or not. I don't imply that you shouldn't be paid for your work, but
it's
> > not the fact that you're being paid that makes your reviews credible.
>
> It speaks to my credibility. Any hoo haa can post on the net. Getting paid
to
> write a good review is something entirely different. Of course there's
added
> value there.
Value yes, credibility no. We're obviously never going to agree on this
point, but here it is one more time from the top: The credibility of your
reviews is not a result of the fact that you are paid to write them. You
get paid because your reviews are credible. People can write credible
reviews without being paid to do so, and people can judge the credibility of
anonymous reviews to a reasonable degree to be of use to the discerning
reader.
That's my position, yours appears to be otherwise. No problem. Somehow
we'll get by.
> >> BTW, what do you do for a living?
> >
> > Wouldn't that be ironic if I tried to qualify my response by
> > name-dropping...
>
> Oh PLEEEEASE! Wash your hands before and after you type something like
that
> again. And while you're at it, send out monagrammed tissues so we can all
> wipe the spew from our screens and keyboards after reading your last line.
>
> Oh I get it, you're into provoking (which is different and less
interesting
> that being provocative). Try rec.audio.provoke, it's a more challenging
read.
FFS... it's a perfectly valid point. I'm arguing that the credibility of an
anonymous review can be determined based on the content. To post my resume
to back that up would *undermine my entire argument*. Even if I didn't have
a policy of not disclosing personal information publicly, I would NEVER do
so under this sort of contradictory duress.
I have no intention of provoking anyone, but nor will I be coerced into
recanting my position. And I fail to see how having an opinion on this
matter should be so inflammatory in the first place, but hey, it's usenet,
we all roll the dice.
Scott Dorsey
>
>I think you'll find that your first challenge is finding a
>speaker that is clean enough to point the finger at the mic.
You don't use a speaker, you use a spark gap and work backwards from
the response of the perfect impulse.
hank alrich
> If user
> reviews are publishable for cars, they're valid for mics to a similar
> degree. Godspell? No. Useful? Sure, why not.
Because unless I know something of the driver's habits and preferences I
have no idea how to take the review. Most newbie reviewer's have so
little knowledge of what factors influence a mic's performance, and how,
that I dont bother reading mic reviews unless they're by someone from
whom I've read enough reviews to understand their thinking about mics.
This means I do not bother with reviews from anonymous. Anonymous wrote
some great music, but isn't so sharp on mic reviews.
--
ha
hank alrich
> "Richard Crowley" wrote...
> > "Zigakly" wrote ...
> > > Wouldn't that be ironic if I tried to qualify my response by
> > > name-dropping...
> > Perhaps you could start with your own?
> > Many of us have reservations about people who hide behind
> > aliases, whether consciously or subconsciensously.
> I'm not hiding, but I'm not waving my dick around either. I consider the
> unnecessary publication of personal information to be irresponsible. If I
> lose points for that, so be it.
It has been proven right in this forum that you can imagine you can
hide, but you can't hide. There are some very sharp knives in the
drawer. When the chase wants cutting-to, it happens.
--
ha
hank alrich
> > > My posts here are anonymous.
> >
> > And in that context, you might consider how much
> > credibility and general street cred is given here,
> > in an established forum, to an anonymous Google
> > poster.
> >
> > FWIW; 's all i'm sayin'.
>
> A rose by any other name (or none at all) would smell as sweet. I call them
> as I see them. Anyone experienced enough to make a thorough, concise,
> intelligible review probably isn't lying.
I'm not aware of anonymous reviewers who fit that description. But I
don't go looking for anonymous reviewers, either.
> The usual caveats apply as well
> of course, but name recognition isn't important to me. In fact I marginally
> discredit anyone who posts personal information publicly unnecessarily. (no
> offense to those who do)
Some folks may not feel they have something to hide, or someone to hide
from.
--
ha
Arny Krueger
> Arny Krueger <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>>
>> I think you'll find that your first challenge is finding
>> a speaker that is clean enough to point the finger at
>> the mic.
>
> You don't use a speaker, you use a spark gap and work
> backwards from the response of the perfect impulse.
OK, I'm hip to that approach for looking at frequency and
phase response. What about nonlinear distortion?
Zigakly
"hank alrich" <walk...@thegrid.net> wrote in message
news:1h2ip7c.19ymn1910i0ic7N%walk...@thegrid.net...
Which is why I don't pretend to be hiding, and why I don't make it any
easier for them. I've emailed several frequenters of this forum for various
reasons using emails from one of my domains, and by fingering them you get
my home address. Hell, one of my domains is my celphone number (the last
four digits spell a word associated with music production). Once I make
personal contact such as email, then I consider it proper to offer at least
that much, yet I still don't put my home addy in my sig.
Scott Dorsey
THIS E-CLASS MERCEDES SURE IS A LOUSY CAR. IT WON'T BALANCE ON TWO
WHEELS AND MY ATTEMPT TO JUMP A SCHOOL BUS WITH IT WAS NOT SUCCESSFUL.
ALSO THE CUPHOLDER IS INCONVENIENT. DON'T BUY ONE.
Scott Dorsey
Knowing the impulse response tells you a lot about nonlinear effects as
well. If you don't think that's enough, you can do calibrated sparks
of varying intensity.
A pistonphone is probably more effective, although using a pistonphone
with a non-omni capsule involves a lot of fudge factors.
Another trick is to use a plate that is electrostatically coupled to the
diaphragm, mounted in front of the capsule. This allows you to apply
signal to the microphone. The neat thing about it is that it allows you
to make any arbitrary measurements of the capsule+electronics system
without involving the microphone body.
With the various Chinese large diaphragm mikes it is very interesting to
compare the nearfield response with the response recorded with the
pistonphone and electrostatic methods. It's very clear that nobody is
actually engineering the grilles and bodies.
Zigakly
Some folks feel that they have nothing to gain by revealing information that
can enable or even invite abuse. They might even feel that any pressure to
post such information on usenet of all places is unfounded and perhaps even
a bit rude.
Once bitten, twice shy. That's all I have to say about that.
Chris Hornbeck
>Some folks feel that they have nothing to gain by revealing information that
>can enable or even invite abuse. They might even feel that any pressure to
>post such information on usenet of all places is unfounded and perhaps even
>a bit rude.
I certainly meant no offense by my earlier post. Rather
a comment on credibility in this non-face-to-face world.
>Once bitten, twice shy. That's all I have to say about that.
You obviously have your reasons. I've been lucky; not
everyone has been.
Good fortune,
Chris Hornbeck
Bob Cain
Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Knowing the impulse response tells you a lot about nonlinear effects as
> well. If you don't think that's enough, you can do calibrated sparks
> of varying intensity.
Calibrating a spark gap is a bit of a challenge in itself.
They are by no means flat. Smooth, maybe but they have a
whole lot less low frequency energy, usually not enough to
be usable above ambient, than they do high frequency energy.
Where it starts to roll off is a function of the spark gap
length among other things. Then there is the problem that a
spark just doesn't contain much energy to put the measuremnt
above any ambient noise.
The best way to get an impulse response is via a good
measurement (reference) mic using a swept sinusoid stimulus.
First you get the IR of the speaker and anything up to it,
then you can divide any subsequent microphone measurements
by that of the speaker to eliminate its effects.
Any such results will be relative to the performance of the
reference mic so it has to be pretty good.
Zigakly
Shit, if a RAP veteran resorts to making an ass of himself like this, I must
be on to something.
That's a joke. I really don't care as much as y'all seem to. But at the
same time, lighten up.
Arny Krueger
news:dfoet...@enews2.newsguy.com
This sounds like a pretty believable story. It describes a
procedure that could also shed light on the nonlinear
distortion question in a pretty direct fashion.
Got anything to report?
Ty Ford
(in article <dfn87i$qsg$1...@domitilla.aioe.org>):
>
> "It looks just like a Telefunken U47" "With leather?"
>
> I think the comparison between browsing amateur reviews of microphones to
> fondling male genetalia in the dark is a bit much. What's wrong with renting
> a mic that's well-regarded among anonymous reviews?
That's a great idea. I thought Dreamhire had closed, but apparently they are
open. The other issue is that mics sound different with different preamps and
who knows what the actual monitoring or acoustics issues may be....then can
the listener keep from being distracted by the brighter is better phenomenon
>> Scatalogisms notwithstanding, I hope you get my point.
>
> I sure hope I do, or else I'll have to wear a condom for the next retort. I
> might get hearing aids!
>
> [ba-dum tshhh]
Thanks ladies and gent, he's at the club all week. Don't forget to tip your
waitress.
hank alrich
> "Scott Dorsey"...
It'd be difficult to lighten more upply than Scott did right there.
--
ha
Scott Dorsey
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> Knowing the impulse response tells you a lot about nonlinear effects as
>> well. If you don't think that's enough, you can do calibrated sparks
>> of varying intensity.
>
>Calibrating a spark gap is a bit of a challenge in itself.
>They are by no means flat. Smooth, maybe but they have a
>whole lot less low frequency energy, usually not enough to
>be usable above ambient, than they do high frequency energy.
> Where it starts to roll off is a function of the spark gap
>length among other things. Then there is the problem that a
>spark just doesn't contain much energy to put the measuremnt
>above any ambient noise.
Right, and the radiation pattern isn't necessarily even either. BUT,
this is easy stuff to model mathematically and getting the fudge factors
from the basic physics isn't a problem.
>The best way to get an impulse response is via a good
>measurement (reference) mic using a swept sinusoid stimulus.
> First you get the IR of the speaker and anything up to it,
>then you can divide any subsequent microphone measurements
>by that of the speaker to eliminate its effects.
>
>Any such results will be relative to the performance of the
>reference mic so it has to be pretty good.
This is popular but depends on absolute repeatability.
Zigakly
> On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 13:32:55 -0400, Zigakly wrote
> (in article <dfn87i$qsg$1...@domitilla.aioe.org>):
>
> >
> > "It looks just like a Telefunken U47" "With leather?"
> >
> > I think the comparison between browsing amateur reviews of microphones
to
> > fondling male genetalia in the dark is a bit much. What's wrong with
renting
> > a mic that's well-regarded among anonymous reviews?
>
> That's a great idea. I thought Dreamhire had closed, but apparently they
are
> open. The other issue is that mics sound different with different preamps
and
> who knows what the actual monitoring or acoustics issues may be....then
can
> the listener keep from being distracted by the brighter is better
phenomenon
Gee, thanks mom. I would never have considered that. Is that what makes
for good reviews? Treat the reader like an ill-equipped incompetent
neanderthal?
Well you might have a point. It took me two phone calls to find a place
that rents out AT2020's. I have to walk a whole 9 blocks.
Bob Cain
Arny Krueger wrote:
> This sounds like a pretty believable story. It describes a
> procedure that could also shed light on the nonlinear
> distortion question in a pretty direct fashion.
>
> Got anything to report?
No. As you know, that is a much different beast. If the
sound source has distortion in it of both the linear and
non-linear type then characterization, while there is a
modeling theory that is complete for it, is very imractical
in practice from the cost of measuring and computing it.
I'm not sure anyone has done work on inverting the model,
either, assuming it could be fit to a given instance.
Inversion is necessasary to cancel it out of the measurement.
For single frequency measurement at a given amplitude I'm
sure an inversion could be worked out but as I think you
have pointed out, the non-linear distortion of a condenser
mic is _very_ small, certainly far enough below that of
even a very good speaker that it is not of real consequence.
Scott Dorsey
>
>Maybe the reviewers need reviewing...
Absolutely! That is your job as editor!
>I think in this regard you're somewhat spoiled by the rappore you have with
>Ty. Because of it you can take more advantage of his work than a typical
>review. I don't think it's a reasonable expectation of reviews on such a
>casual basis as the website in question.
I don't know, I can name perhaps ten reviewers for various magazines
and their basic attitudes about gear. Just from reading reviews. I
read Ty's reviews for years before I met him, and when I did finally
meet him, I had a pretty good idea of who he was and what he did.
>There are many aspects to mics
>that don't require such fine detail and assurance of accuracy. If user
>reviews are publishable for cars, they're valid for mics to a similar
>degree. Godspell? No. Useful? Sure, why not.
I wouldn't trust user reviews of cars either, personally. What is even
worse about microphones is that so many people buy them on the word of some
reviewer without even a test drive. THAT terrifies me as a reviewer.
Uncle Russ
have strong feelings about this subject. Now that we're getting to the
nitty-gritty, I'll toss in a few thoughts:
Most reviews are dreadful because the reviewers either are opinionated,
incompetent, or afraid of offending the manufacturer. When you review a
product, it is crucial for your evaluation to consider the manufacturer's
intent. And you must rise above your personal preferences.
You can't directly compare a $20 dollar mic, for example, with a DPA or
Schoeps unless, through some amazing technological breakthrough, it actually
sounds in the same league. If you do make such a comparison between
dissimilar categories, be very specific about what aspect you think merits
comparison, why, and in what way(s) it might compare. You also must then
point out the differences so the reader draws the proper conclusion.
You can't criticize something because you personally prefer something else.
For example, it would be asinine to condemn Mozart as boring because you
prefer the Rolling Stones. Yet such stupidity occurs all the time in
reviews.
If the product is disappointing, you'd better say so or nobody will believe
you in the future. If it's a piece of junk, then say so in a diplomatic way.
My standard approach with every review is to send the text to the
manufacturer for technical corrections but, if he doesn't agree with my
conclusion, he can write a rebuttal as part of the article. In the past
fifteen years, only two people have written responses and only one of those
disagreed with my evaluation. He went out of business the following year.
Most reviews are really just free publicity for the product (and we all know
that); many products require no formal review. When one does, it is the
reviewer's responsibility to evaluate it objectively, fairly, accurately,
and in proper context. And to be very clear about what he says and why he
says it.
It also helps to have a standard rating scale (such as five stars or
specific words) so the reader may compare your evaluation to similar
products.
I read very, very few helpful mic reviews.
"Uncle Russ" Reinberg
WESTLAKE PUBLISHING COMPANY
www.finescalerr.com
WESTLAKE RECORDS
www.westlakerecords.com
"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dfutj1$8lc$1...@panix2.panix.com...
Mike Rivers
Uncle Russ wrote:
> If the product is disappointing, you'd better say so or nobody will believe
> you in the future. If it's a piece of junk, then say so in a diplomatic way.
The usual thing to say about anything that isn't really top quality is
"it's really good for the price." I suppose that with all the good
$2,000+ mics out there, you wouldn't say that about a U87, however.
What's the price above which reviewers stop making that statement? And
should those reviews be the only ones we should really care about? The
cheap stuff is getting better all the time, so I would expect that
today's $100 mic would be better than last year's $100 mic, but that it
also wouldn't be as good as any $2,000 mic that I can't afford anyway.
I guess the point of a reveiw of a low-end product is just to find out
that it doesn't completely suck, or learn about any unusual quirks that
might make it particularly unsuitable for a particular user. But to say
"it's good for male vocals and gave a nice sheen to the cymbals and a
full sound on a bass amp" is pretty meaningless.