I'm curious if the components actually cost exponentially more than
other mics (say compared to a Marshall MXL etc.) or what other factors
there might be. R&D? Is assembly time much more involved? Or.....?

In article ,
(Doc) wrote:

I'm curious if the components actually cost exponentially more than
other mics (say compared to a Marshall MXL etc.) or what other factors
there might be. R&D? Is assembly time much more involved? Or.....?

same reason Divorces are so expensive


they are worth it.
george

On 2 Apr 2004 12:11:54 -0800, (Doc) wrote:
I'm curious if the components actually cost exponentially more than
other mics (say compared to a Marshall MXL etc.) or what other factors
there might be. R&D? Is assembly time much more involved? Or.....?

Why are Porsches more expensive that Chevys?

There is only one answer to such a question:
because people are willing to pay for them.

Sigh.


Pat http://www.pfarrell.com/prc/

Doc wrote:
I'm curious if the components actually cost exponentially more than
other mics (say compared to a Marshall MXL etc.) or what other factors
there might be. R&D? Is assembly time much more involved? Or.....?

If you make microphones one at a time, and you spend a couple weeks
curing and stabilizing the diaphragm on each one individually, you
are going to have a lot higher labour costs than places that stamp
them out of machines every second and rely on QA inspections rather
than craftsmanship.

You might as well as why a custom-built Formula One racecar costs so
much more than a Yugo.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In article m,
Pat Farrell wrote:

Why are Porsches more expensive that Chevys?

There is only one answer to such a question:
because people are willing to pay for them.

Chevy drivers always say that.

In article ,
Scott Dorsey wrote:

You might as well as why a custom-built Formula One racecar costs so
much more than a Yugo.

Of course, but for every poser with a $5,000 Neumann,
there's a struggling artist turning out superior work with a third-hand SM58.

On the other hand, you won't even see a Yugo in the parking lot at
a F1 race, much less in the starting lineup :^)

Car analogies don't fit as well as musical-instrument ones. Why is a
handcrafted concert grand piano more expensive than an assembly line
build upright? Why was the old Martin that belonged to Eric Clapton sold
for $8,500 at Charlie's, when similar Martin's are under $2,000 new?
(Hint: it's really not just because Eric played it!)

Doc wrote:

I'm curious if the components actually cost exponentially more than
other mics (say compared to a Marshall MXL etc.) or what other factors
there might be. R&D? Is assembly time much more involved? Or.....?

Why is steak more than hmaburger? What does a Mercedes cost more than a
Geo? Why is a McCollum more than a Seagull? Why is silver more than tin?
Etc.

What is the worth of the mind of someone like Dirk Brauner or David
Jospehson?

--
ha

On 2 Apr 2004 16:02:22 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

You might as well as why a custom-built Formula One racecar costs so
much more than a Yugo.

I see no real point in responding to someone, Doc
, who clearly has zero
understanding of basic high school economics.

But 'cause I like Scott, the F-One analogy is a bit of a stretch.
Probably better to compare a Cartier, Rolex, or Patek Philippe
watch to a $15 Timex. Each will keep time, so the Timex is
equivalent, right?

The problem with the F-One analogy is that there is a huge amount
of reseach done each year, from scratch, in response to rule
changes, competition, etc. This has to be factored
into the cost of the six or eight F-1 cars that Ferrari builds.
In contrast, the Korby, Neumann, Schoeps, AEA etc.
product lives are much longer, so they can spread the cost
out over more time. And with luck, over a few more units.

A two year old Formula One car is useless, except as
a collector's item or museam piece. A two year old
high end mic may just be getting warmed up.

For all the rest, what Scott said.

Pat http://www.pfarrell.com/prc/

james wrote:
In article ,
Scott Dorsey wrote:

You might as well as why a custom-built Formula One racecar costs so
much more than a Yugo.

Of course, but for every poser with a $5,000 Neumann,
there's a struggling artist turning out superior work with a third-hand SM58.

On the other hand, you won't even see a Yugo in the parking lot at
a F1 race, much less in the starting lineup :^)

No, but you'll see twenty-year old Fords at the local dirt track. Usually
very modified.

Car analogies don't fit as well as musical-instrument ones. Why is a
handcrafted concert grand piano more expensive than an assembly line
build upright? Why was the old Martin that belonged to Eric Clapton sold
for $8,500 at Charlie's, when similar Martin's are under $2,000 new?
(Hint: it's really not just because Eric played it!)

Car analogies fit in that at some point in the car range, you really _are_
paying money for hand construction and custom manufacture, and that the
market for that degree of both quality and customization is very limited.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Doc wrote:

I'm curious if the components actually cost exponentially more than
other mics (say compared to a Marshall MXL etc.) or what other factors
there might be. R&D? Is assembly time much more involved? Or.....?

Don't get me started. :-)


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

"Pat Farrell" wrote in message
s.com...
On 2 Apr 2004 16:02:22 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

You might as well as why a custom-built Formula One racecar costs so
much more than a Yugo.

I see no real point in responding to someone, Doc
, who clearly has zero
understanding of basic high school economics.

But 'cause I like Scott, the F-One analogy is a bit of a stretch.
Probably better to compare a Cartier, Rolex, or Patek Philippe
watch to a $15 Timex. Each will keep time, so the Timex is
equivalent, right?
Regardless of what a mic sounds like
using high end mics allows me to offer both a known quality and charge a
premimum price for doing so
even if the mics sounded exactly alike
or even if the cheap ass mic sounded better owning and selling the
Neumann/Schoeps name brings me more money, makes closing the sale easier
making it worth the cost
George


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.637 / Virus Database: 408 - Release Date: 3/20/2004

In article writes:

I'm curious if the components actually cost exponentially more than
other mics (say compared to a Marshall MXL etc.) or what other factors
there might be.

Mostly labor and quality assurance, which makes the most critical
element, the diaphragm assembly, considerably more expensive than a
mass produced part.

AKG has invested quite a bit of money into automated tensioning
equipment which allows them to make diaphragm assemblies that are
better adujsted than they were doing by hand, and in less time. But
that technology costs money. Where it's paying off for them is being
able to turn out more of the same quality product at about the same
(or in some cases somewhat lower) price as with hand labor.

Make more, sell more. Pay for equipment. Move on.

I expect that automation plays an important part in the manufacture of
other microphones, too, to some extent. But accuracy costs time and
money, and if you're willing to settle for less accurately drilled
holes or a not-as-flat backplate, you can make it faster and cheaper.
This is why the Chinese and Russian mics, while sounding remarkably
good, are less consistent unit-to-unit than, say, a Neumann or AKG.

Resistors and capacitors all cost about the same, and there aren't
that many electronic parts in a condenser mic that the assembly costs
differ greatly, but a transformer that costs $25 wholesale, as
compared to one that costs $2, causes much more than a $23 increse in
selling price.

Hand-made mics like Lawson and Brauner are of course expensive because
there's a lot of time that goes into each one, and there aren't
thousands and thousands made.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...

If you make microphones one at a time, and you spend a couple weeks
curing and stabilizing the diaphragm on each one individually, you
are going to have a lot higher labour costs than places that stamp
them out of machines every second and rely on QA inspections rather
than craftsmanship.

But...give me a *good* reason.... ;-)

Okay. That makes sense. I'm not hip on the details of mic construction but I
have enough mechanical aptitude to get the idea.

Doc wrote:

I'm curious if the components actually cost exponentially more than
other mics (say compared to a Marshall MXL etc.) or what other factors
there might be. R&D? Is assembly time much more involved? Or.....?

It might be all of these or it might be none. Suppose, for example, that
you're incredibly clever (C'mon now, work with me here. ;-) and manage to
invent a mic that costs only pennies to manufacture yet provides exactly
the sound sought after by millions of microphone purchasers. You could,
in the current market, sell that mic for thousands of dollars until someone
else found a way to duplicate your design and begins competing with you.
Unless you then (illegally!) conspire with your competitor(s) to fix your
prices, the market value of your products would reach an equilibrium.

It's not likely that you or anybody else will find a way to manufacture
desirable mics for pennies, however. As usual, the good stuff costs
more to produce, market, and service, and its value remains higher than
that of the not-so-good stuff. This, too, is an equilibrium, driven by
the same market forces.

This, in very simple terms, is Economics 101.

--
================================================== ======================
Michael Kesti | "And like, one and one don't make
| two, one and one make one."
| - The Who, Bargain

"Pat Farrell" wrote in message
s.com...
On 2 Apr 2004 16:02:22 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

You might as well as why a custom-built Formula One racecar costs so
much more than a Yugo.

I see no real point in responding to someone, Doc
, who clearly has zero
understanding of basic high school economics.

And you clearly aren't a Dale Carnegie devotee.

Your "point" for responding is obvious and has nothing to do with enhancing
the discussion. You must make a lot of money in a client-based industry to
go around needlessly insulting people.

"George" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Doc) wrote:

I'm curious if the components actually cost exponentially more than
other mics (say compared to a Marshall MXL etc.) or what other factors
there might be. R&D? Is assembly time much more involved? Or.....?

same reason Divorces are so expensive

Because you have to get lawyers involved?
--


Neil Henderson
Progressive Rock
http://www.saqqararecords.com

In article yFkbc.21921$Q45.6067@fed1read02 writes:

Of course, but for every poser with a $5,000 Neumann,
there's a struggling artist turning out superior work with a third-hand SM58.

This has nothing to do with the price of the microphone, it has
everything to do with the difference between a hack with money and an
artist with a vision.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Michael R. Kesti wrote:


It might be all of these or it might be none. Suppose, for example, that
you're incredibly clever (C'mon now, work with me here. ;-) and manage to
invent a mic that costs only pennies to manufacture yet provides exactly
the sound sought after by millions of microphone purchasers.

You could do that, you don't even have to be terribly
clever. In fact it is being done more closely than anyone
will admit, but because it doesn't have the right name on it
no one "important" would buy it and those that own the name
brand would savage it regardless of its sound because of the
investment they have made in dollars and energy proclaiming
the value of their holdings.

That's life in pro audio.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

"George" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Doc) wrote:

I'm curious if the components actually cost exponentially more than
other mics (say compared to a Marshall MXL etc.) or what other factors
there might be. R&D? Is assembly time much more involved? Or.....?

same reason Divorces are so expensive

Because you have to get lawyers involved?
--


Neil Henderson
Progressive Rock
http://www.saqqararecords.com


You left out the bean counters. They screw up what the lawyers miss. They're
also the ones who insist it be done the least expensive way. Of course quality
of product does not enter into their equation.


--Wayne

-"sounded good to me"-

(hank alrich) wrote:


What is the worth of the mind of someone like Dirk Brauner or David
Jospehson?



I dunno, let's put them on ebay and let the market decide. G


Nathan Eldred
http://www.atlasproaudio.com

Nathan Eldred wrote:

(hank alrich) wrote:

What is the worth of the mind of someone like Dirk Brauner or David
Jospehson?

I dunno, let's put them on ebay and let the market decide. G

"No reserve!"

--
ha

"Bob Cain" wrote in message
...

You could do that, you don't even have to be terribly
clever. In fact it is being done more closely than anyone
will admit, but because it doesn't have the right name on it
no one "important" would buy it and those that own the name
brand would savage it regardless of its sound because of the
investment they have made in dollars and energy proclaiming
the value of their holdings.

Well, there are a few other factors besides that. As other people have
mentioned, using better-quality parts, particularly transformers, really
does improve the sound -- and there's typically an 8-to-1 ratio of selling
price to parts cost. So a $50 transformer contributes about $400 to the
price of the microphone all by itself.

Then there's the question of repeatability. Really good manufacturers'
products are the same, unit to unit. The products of most low-priced
manufacturers are not, because the parts that go into them vary more,
because they in turn are cheap.

Then there's the high-precision manufacturing needed to make a really good
capsule, with the holes drilled just so, time after time after time. That
overlaps with the previous quesiton, of course.

There are some remarkable bargains out there in microphone land -- I know, I
own some of them. But there are also some high-priced units that you
couldn't build for cheap, and they really do sound better, most of the time.
They make records that sell, too.

The dividing line is about $1100. Above that, the microphones are less
mass-produced, more craftsperson-built, and more predictable as well.

Peace,
Paul

"hank alrich" wrote in message
.. .
Nathan Eldred wrote:

(hank alrich) wrote:

What is the worth of the mind of someone like Dirk Brauner or David
Jospehson?

I dunno, let's put them on ebay and let the market decide. G

"No reserve!"

"Used only in smoke-free home brain cavity..."
--


Neil Henderson
Progressive Rock
http://www.saqqararecords.com

Paul Stamler wrote:

"Bob Cain" wrote in message
...


You could do that, you don't even have to be terribly
clever. In fact it is being done more closely than anyone
will admit, but because it doesn't have the right name on it
no one "important" would buy it and those that own the name
brand would savage it regardless of its sound because of the
investment they have made in dollars and energy proclaiming
the value of their holdings.


Well, there are a few other factors besides that. As other people have
mentioned, using better-quality parts, particularly transformers, really
does improve the sound -- and there's typically an 8-to-1 ratio of selling
price to parts cost. So a $50 transformer contributes about $400 to the
price of the microphone all by itself.

Transformers are as susceptable to the improvements in
consistancy that automation can provide as about any part.
Transformers are not inherently complicated devices and need
not be expensive to be good.


Then there's the question of repeatability. Really good manufacturers'
products are the same, unit to unit. The products of most low-priced
manufacturers are not, because the parts that go into them vary more,
because they in turn are cheap.

With automation, which bring costs down, also comes
repeatability. Programmed machines can be far more precise
and repeatable in their operation and thus use less
expensive assemblies. Stamped and interference fitted parts
can replace a good deal of machining and fastening and still
meet higher tolerances.


Then there's the high-precision manufacturing needed to make a really good
capsule, with the holes drilled just so, time after time after time. That
overlaps with the previous quesiton, of course.

Nothing does that with better speed, precision and
repeatabity than a numeric controled machine tool.

The same is true of nearly every aspect of manufacture. If
this has not been achieved yet with microphones it is
curious because it has been with an enormous number of
manufactured items. We're not talking rocket science here,
the manufacturing technology has been in place for at least
30 years to accomplish _very_ high precision and very
repeatable production at low cost on vendor lines that can
make microphones in the morning and disk drives in the
afteroon without a pause in the flow of product or materials.

I've said it before, but a modern disk drive is a much more
difficult thing to manufacture and requires precision and
repeatability at least as stringent as a microphone in
numerous aspects of its manufacture and look at the cost of
those things.

I spent a goodly number of years in that industry, focusing
on the design and programming of machine tool computer
controls so I have some practical experience with the
technology.

This leaves us with design as being what separates the men
from the boys and the mystery of that is going the way of
the mystery of speaker cabinet design did with the advent of
the Thiele-Small model. Very detailed models of microphones
now exist that can parameterize virtually all of the
mechanical factors that determine its performance
parameters. Spice like simulations (in fact using Spice)
can be done to nail the parameters that will give the
desired performance and when the thing is built, it won't
vary signifigantly from the model.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

"Paul Stamler" wrote in
:

Then there's the high-precision manufacturing needed to make a really
good capsule, with the holes drilled just so, time after time after
time.

The high end mic market is tiny.

This high precision is a only a problem because of the investment it would
require.
Nobody would pay really big bucks tooling up for such a tiny market, which
is what the high-end mic market is.

This very high precision is quite common in producing many components in
our computers and lots of other high tech devices. With the necessary cash
investment, these components can be mass produced, sometimes for a cost of
a few cents, but the market is ten's of millions of units or more.

How many high-end mics can be sold? Answer: Very, very few.

Regards,

Terry

Bob Cain wrote in
:

nail the parameters that will give the
desired performance and when the thing is built, it won't
vary signifigantly from the model.


Question is, what is desired performance?
People want to see the "right" name on it, that's what.

I personally think there can be a lot of bull**** talked when it comes to
expensive mics. A bit like some of that "expensive cable" bull****....

Choosing which mic I put up comes a long way down the list of my
priorities.


Regards,

Terry

Bob Cain wrote:

I've said it before, but a modern disk drive is a much more
difficult thing to manufacture and requires precision and
repeatability at least as stringent as a microphone in
numerous aspects of its manufacture and look at the cost of
those things.

Yabut, every twenty minutes the world buys more drives than it buys mics
in two decades. There's no practical way to argue with economies of
sufficient scale, IMO.

--
ha

hank alrich wrote:

Bob Cain wrote:


I've said it before, but a modern disk drive is a much more
difficult thing to manufacture and requires precision and
repeatability at least as stringent as a microphone in
numerous aspects of its manufacture and look at the cost of
those things.


Yabut, every twenty minutes the world buys more drives than it buys mics
in two decades. There's no practical way to argue with economies of
sufficient scale, IMO.

You're right to a point but manufacturing job shops exist to
ameliorate that to a very large degree. You can ride
signifigantly on the aggregate economy of scale of many
products produced for many product integrators on the same
line in a time multiplexed fashion. It doesn't just have to
be one item that justifies the investment in equipment any more.

As simple and passive a device as a microphone is, there
should be no problem whatsoever in meeting high tolerances
at high rates while also using less expensive assembly
techniques that might even appear "cheezy" until you
actually measured the thing. A cheezy appearance could
simply indicate that little or no control or finishing was
applied where it didn't matter.

People always seem to want to point at diaphragm tensioning
as a point where this breaks down but I'd sure like to know
why. Modern machine tools are just as adept at adaptive
measurement as they are at fabrication and assembly. It
presents no problem at all to tension and fix a diaphragm
while simultaneously measuring its tension to high precision
and to do so at high rates of production.

I've heard some say "it's been tried and it didn't work"
and I'd sure as hell like to know why it didn't work.



Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

it's pretty painful to the wallet, whatever the reason. i've noticed
a loose "ten times" pattern.

you want a serviceable entry level mic? $100+
want to get in the game for real? $1000+

want ok monitors? $500
want real monitors? $5000

want a basic eq? $250+
want a real one? $2500+

want a basic preamp? $150-220
want a real one? $1500-2200

and it goes on and on like that (as a rough idea)

Bob Cain wrote:

As simple and passive a device as a microphone is

On paper anyway.




People always seem to want to point at diaphragm tensioning as a point
where this breaks down but I'd sure like to know why. Modern machine
tools are just as adept at adaptive measurement as they are at
fabrication and assembly. It presents no problem at all to tension and
fix a diaphragm while simultaneously measuring its tension to high
precision and to do so at high rates of production.

I've heard some say "it's been tried and it didn't work" and I'd sure as
hell like to know why it didn't work.

Ask David Josephson in one of the rare moments when he isn't outrageously busy and he'll tell you.

In article 41, Terry
writes:

Choosing which mic I put up comes a long way down the list of my
priorities.

I'm confused by the wording of this statement. Are you say that choosing the
right mic is a low priority? If so, I disagree.

Garth~


"I think the fact that music can come up a wire is a miracle."
Ed Cherney

Bob Cain wrote:

Transformers are as susceptable to the improvements in
consistancy that automation can provide as about any part.
Transformers are not inherently complicated devices and need
not be expensive to be good.

The problem is that transformers are now specialty items. Back when every
cheap table radio had an audio transformer in it, there were a lot of
companies making high grade audio transformers. Now that hardly anything
uses audio transformers, there are very few people making them. Automated
assembly lines are great if you can sell tens of thousands, not so great
if you need to sell five.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

(Doc) wrote in message . com...
I'm curious if the components actually cost exponentially more than
other mics (say compared to a Marshall MXL etc.) or what other factors
there might be. R&D? Is assembly time much more involved? Or.....?

Well it should be because of quality control. Let's face it. At this
point in time, there shouldn't really be any new designs under the
sun. Most of the mic
manufacturers know the design of a good mic. But no matter what you
do, any configuration has to be tested, and then, when in production,
quality control will make the difference as to how consistently good
those that go to market are.

mike http://www.mmeproductions.com

(Scott Dorsey) wrote in message ...
Doc wrote:
I'm curious if the components actually cost exponentially more than
other mics (say compared to a Marshall MXL etc.) or what other factors
there might be. R&D? Is assembly time much more involved? Or.....?

If you make microphones one at a time, and you spend a couple weeks
curing and stabilizing the diaphragm on each one individually, you
are going to have a lot higher labour costs than places that stamp
them out of machines every second and rely on QA inspections rather
than craftsmanship.

You might as well as why a custom-built Formula One racecar costs so
much more than a Yugo.
--scott

Good quality control at the end of the assembly line can make superior
products cheaper than individual craftmanship. They will still be more
than the garbage with no quality control. It is the marriage of the
best components of both systems. Although the assembly line one will
have more waste.

Mike http://www.mmeproductions.com

Mike wrote:

Well it should be because of quality control. Let's face it. At this
point in time, there shouldn't really be any new designs under the
sun. Most of the mic
manufacturers know the design of a good mic. But no matter what you
do, any configuration has to be tested, and then, when in production,
quality control will make the difference as to how consistently good
those that go to market are.

Absolutely agreed and if integrated with the line it need
not add that much cost and can be better and more
consistenly performed and applied. It is also very easy to
integrate correction to the manufacturing process from
analysis of data that is automatically gathered.

I just assumed that in my comments. I can't even envision a
line any more that doesn't have the final calibration as
part of the manufacturing process. If anybody isn't doing
this they are missing a big boat named "Cost Reduction."
What a lot of people don't understand is that cost reduction
and quality improvement can be two sides of the same coin.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Mike wrote:
(Doc) wrote in message
. com...
I'm curious if the components actually cost exponentially more than
other mics (say compared to a Marshall MXL etc.) or what other
factors there might be. R&D? Is assembly time much more involved?
Or.....?

Well it should be because of quality control.

Not only quality control, but component selection standards.

Large volume manufacturers are often keen on saving 0.5% on the cost of a
resistor. Manufacturers with a known stable quality standard will likely
source a particular brand and model of resistor (the BEST one for their
purpose) and stick with that one type while possible. Allowing consistency.

With hi-end products a reference unit (or several) will be kept as a
yardstick to what teh characteristics should be identical to.

geoff

PS Interesting story is the BBC standards for licencing BBC monitor speakers
to manufacturers.

I'm curious if the components actually cost exponentially more than
other mics (say compared to a Marshall MXL etc.) or what other factors
there might be.

Mostly labor and quality assurance, which makes the most critical
element, the diaphragm assembly, considerably more expensive than a
mass produced part.

AKG has invested quite a bit of money into automated tensioning
equipment which allows them to make diaphragm assemblies that are
better adujsted than they were doing by hand, and in less time. But
that technology costs money. Where it's paying off for them is being
able to turn out more of the same quality product at about the same
(or in some cases somewhat lower) price as with hand labor.

Make more, sell more. Pay for equipment. Move on.

I expect that automation plays an important part in the manufacture of
other microphones, too, to some extent. But accuracy costs time and
money, and if you're willing to settle for less accurately drilled
holes or a not-as-flat backplate, you can make it faster and cheaper.
This is why the Chinese and Russian mics, while sounding remarkably
good, are less consistent unit-to-unit than, say, a Neumann or AKG.

Resistors and capacitors all cost about the same, and there aren't
that many electronic parts in a condenser mic that the assembly costs
differ greatly, but a transformer that costs $25 wholesale, as
compared to one that costs $2, causes much more than a $23 increse in
selling price.

Hand-made mics like Lawson and Brauner are of course expensive because
there's a lot of time that goes into each one, and there aren't
thousands and thousands made.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo



AKG has a very consistant product.
Unfortunately for me I find most of their microphones to be consistantly bright
and harsh. Sometimes that has a use, but I find my Neumanns and Schoeps
generally work a lot better and sound more like the subject that I am
recording.

Funny thing, the Neumanns and Schoeps cost more, and the price is worth it to
me.

Many clients have no idea who AKG, Neumann or Schoeps are, but know that Shure
makes really good professional microphones, so dropping those names is of no
benefit.
If they listen, they hear the difference and that matters to me.

As to my Schoeps, if I decide I need another "matched" 6/41, Schoeps will pick
another that matches.

Oktavas bought from GC won't match from mic to mic even with consecutive serial
#.

Neumann claims that all their (modern) microphones of a certain model are
essentially matched.

My old Neumanns have differences, but that could be to age and difference of
use.






Richard H. Kuschel
"I canna change the law of physics."-----Scotty

In article 41 writes:

Question is, what is desired performance?
People want to see the "right" name on it, that's what.

I personally think there can be a lot of bull**** talked when it comes to
expensive mics. A bit like some of that "expensive cable" bull****....

Neumann is a good example - they made a decent mic for half the price
of their "standard" mic, with some compromises that won't bother a
large percentage of the customers. And it has the "right" name on it.
Still, it's a $1,000 mic as compared to a $2,000 mic, not a $100 mic.

These days, the name people look for isn't Neumann, it's ProTools.
Used to be when I had a TASCAM console and recorder, that I got more
than my share of "thank yous" when someone called asking what
equipment I used. Today you don't get a lot of that because people are
used to the majority of studios having lower cost gear.




--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Bob Cain wrote:

I just assumed that in my comments. I can't even envision a
line any more that doesn't have the final calibration as
part of the manufacturing process. If anybody isn't doing
this they are missing a big boat named "Cost Reduction."
What a lot of people don't understand is that cost reduction
and quality improvement can be two sides of the same coin.

For decades Neumann did that by having each mic assessed by a treained
individual _by listening_ to the mic. Note the company's rep for
quality. All the science in the world seems to meet the need for some
aspect of art when it comes to tranduceers. The memorable mics and
speakers seem to me to come from a chain of genuine inspiration.

Ever read Richard Heyser's remarks about getting into speaker design?

--
ha

(Garthrr) wrote in
:

In article 41,
Terry writes:

Choosing which mic I put up comes a long way down the list of my
priorities.

I'm confused by the wording of this statement. Are you say that
choosing the right mic is a low priority? If so, I disagree.

Garth~


Well, obviously it depends who's priority list you are taking about.
Most of the record buying public don't care what mic it was. They are more
concerned by the band/artist.

If your job would be mainly recording the voice/instrument (whatever) for
the current client or project, then I suppose mic choice could be one of
your main priorities.
However, I don't think that mic choice was uppermost in the minds of the
people responsible for creating those "magic" mixs, arrangments,
performances, tunes, lyrics, and so on.

Once you've done all you can on the important things, by all means use a
suitable mic.

Regards,

Terry