|
|
Post by jazznoise on Sept 11, 2013 4:07:10 GMT -6
Now, compared to a test lab somewhere, there might be dozens of variable factors that might make my auditioning of the mics "invalid", but I bet I'd prefer one over the other, and that would be the one I'd choose. Of course you would, that's just called having an opinion. We're not talking about opinions - we're talking about the factors that influence them. This is not a conscious thing we're dealing with. We have innate biases. There's a famous taste where a man took 2 beers and gave them to each subject - one regular beer and one doused with vinegar. When the subject was ignorant of which was which he said he preferred the vinegar one. When the subject was told about the vinegar, they preferred the one with no vinegar. Woah woah - yes, but QC and QA departments would do their nuts if they thought their $2500 microphone had audible differences between each one from the same batch. That's simply not an allowable level of difference. There's a reason people do Six Sigma courses and all that stuff - to make manufacturing an extremely repeatable and accurate process. While mics will obviously change quality from batch to batch, you can bet people like Svart would be doing their nuts if every time they made a product the specs were different. You are right that we do not fully understand human perception. But you are wrong that this changes whether or not a test with a single variable is not the fairest way to determine an audible difference between 2 systems. Being able to quantify and model the Superior Olivary Complex is something much newer than Alan Blumlein's Stereo Microphone techniques - however his own evidence based research led him to believe him to techniques that we still use today. Regardless of what our brain is doing this fact remains true. You're concentrating too strongly on the ambiguities of our imperfect model of the auditory system and the conclusions are false - a test done right is a test done right, whether on a monkey or a human and whether about audio, food or car insurance. Unless you're going to tell me that certain audio equipment causes your brain to become totally rewired into a new organ that operates completely differently. john. Just for the record - I don't feel we're arguing. This has become a discussion on evaluating differences in audio equipment. I sure hope no one is getting upset. Honestly? If people are going to make dramatic statements, it's only fair that others can challenge them. That's not aggressive or antagonistic - it's just conversation. |
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Sept 11, 2013 8:08:51 GMT -6
Many of the conclusions some posters here have made seem to negate our own audio perceptions. This leads to some place where choices in things like which reverb, microphone, plug-in, console, and on and on would be invalidated if put to an abstract, but scientific test. And yes, a test might be as fair as we can conceivably make it, but the results might not necessarily apply to our choices made in audio production. If you want to call those choices, "opinions", fine, but there are also situations where a general consensus is reached.
If put into a room and "tested", I might find difficulty identifying one mix from another, but in my place, in my studio, I don't have that issue. When I'm in a room with a world class engineer, and he corroborates my assessment of something, I move on, I don't think well, we're imagining this, and it can't be proved, so it really doesn't matter.
I bet someone here could "prove" I can't hear the difference between A/D converters by scientifically testing. Now, in the real world, I bet 100 people out of 100 people on this site would choose one of Cowboy's mixes with a Burl, than the same mix without it, (assuming levels were perfectly matched). So, where is the "reality", in a test environment somewhere or is the opinion of those 100 people good enough to conclude the mix with the Burl sounds better.
Let's be honest, most posters here are good musicians and some, excellent and experienced audio engineers. Don't tell me it's only an opinion when they hear an improvement with something like say.. the Burl, because when if put into a test room, they might be unable to differentiate. I'd bet not one musician or audio engineer here would turn down a Burl if they could have one because they can't hear it under certain particular test circumstances, and it wouldn't be because it just makes them feel good to know they have an expensive converter, it's because it simply sounds better.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2013 13:09:15 GMT -6
Ethan, unless i'm really misunderstanding??, your argument is generally that mods are unnecessary, and make little, if any difference. I don't think that all mods are worthless, but many are. One clue is if the mod vendor offers evidence of an improvement. A mod that actually improves audio quality can be shown as either a better frequency response, lower noise, or less distortion. If ad claims are no more than "just listen" I'll remain skeptical. Some mod companies do offer proof! Here's one example: microphone-parts.com/mod-kits/mxl-910-upgrades/I do! Otherwise, how do you know which of the various mods were worth paying for and which were not? --Ethan |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2013 13:14:21 GMT -6
The 2 inches that Ethan is mentioning means that two different mics, comprised of the same parts, would sound different unless they inhabited exactly the same space at the same time. Anyone who's spent any time studying the nuances of moving mics around on a guitar cabinet would know that even 1/4 inch is enough to make a huge difference in the sound. 2 inches would be impossible to match, therefore nullifying the scientific portion of the test, leaving only the subjective portion Exactly. And if the test instrument is an acoustic guitar, there's the added variable of the guitar player moving slightly. That could account for much more than a two-inch difference. Now, that's only for recordings made one after the other, not at the same time using two microphones. But still, as you say, very small distances can make a very large change in the captured response. The graphs below show a 4-inch span, and if I get a chance I'll do something similar with a two-inch distance and post it here. --Ethan   |
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Sept 11, 2013 13:19:29 GMT -6
Ethan, unless i'm really misunderstanding??, your argument is generally that mods are unnecessary, and make little, if any difference. I don't think that all mods are worthless, but many are. One clue is if the mod vendor offers evidence of an improvement. A mod that actually improves audio quality can be shown as either a better frequency response, lower noise, or less distortion. If ad claims are no more than "just listen" I'll remain skeptical. Some mod companies do offer proof! Here's one example: microphone-parts.com/mod-kits/mxl-910-upgrades/I do! Otherwise, how do you know which of the various mods were worth paying for and which were not? --Ethan Hey Ethan, First point=Agreed Second point=(you pulled my quote out of context  ) In my view, you were coming off totalitarian in your view, i think now i see now that i misunderstood your position. I assess my mods one piece at a time, i figured i would put this chain of identical unmodded and modded units together, to blow away the myth that mods don't work, i am 100% positive that ANYONE could hear an absolutely huge difference in these 2 chains, even in a blind internet test with no intimate knowledge of the gear in use. I'm still gonna do it if i can get the other 2 pieces happening. edit; I would still like to reaffirm an earlier point, a marginal improvement in a single piece of gear, that you may deem "not enough to matter", put in a chain with a bunch of other pieces that have marginal mod improvements, that you would deem "not enough to matter" on an individual basis, do indeed matter in a signal chain IME. My one fly vs many flies analogy applies. |
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Sept 11, 2013 14:05:20 GMT -6
Many of the conclusions some posters here have made seem to negate our own audio perceptions. This leads to some place where choices in things like which reverb, microphone, plug-in, console, and on and on would be invalidated if put to an abstract, but scientific test. And yes, a test might be as fair as we can conceivably make it, but the results might not necessarily apply to our choices made in audio production. If you want to call those choices, "opinions", fine, but there are also situations where a general consensus is reached. If put into a room and "tested", I might find difficulty identifying one mix from another, but in my place, in my studio, I don't have that issue. When I'm in a room with a world class engineer, and he corroborates my assessment of something, I move on, I don't think well, we're imagining this, and it can't be proved, so it really doesn't matter. I bet someone here could "prove" I can't hear the difference between A/D converters by scientifically testing. Now, in the real world, I bet 100 people out of 100 people on this site would choose one of Cowboy's mixes with a Burl, than the same mix without it, (assuming levels were perfectly matched). So, where is the "reality", in a test environment somewhere or is the opinion of those 100 people good enough to conclude the mix with the Burl sounds better. Let's be honest, most posters here are good musicians and some, excellent and experienced audio engineers. Don't tell me it's only an opinion when they hear an improvement with something like say.. the Burl, because when if put into a test room, they might be unable to differentiate. I'd bet not one musician or audio engineer here would turn down a Burl if they could have one because they can't hear it under certain particular test circumstances, and it wouldn't be because it just makes them feel good to know they have an expensive converter, it's because it simply sounds better. Look, if you want to get upset then that's fine. No one said the mod's mentioned here are rubbish and no one is rubbishing your experience nor anyone else's - and bringing all that up is both deliberately off topic and makes you come off as petulant. If you want to go down that road, we can all just start throwing chairs around our houses. But your perception of the role of science in music is total fallacy and implies that anyone who feels tests are good drifts into some metaphysical ether where every perception has to be tested and all production work grinds to a halt. It's all because it makes people feel better, to refer to the last part. The terror that the blanky might not be a real blanky at all but actually a rag they were told is a blanky is what makes people get defensive about this stuff. People who "thought" they knew pre-amps were alarmed by the SoS Pre-Amp test. |
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Sept 11, 2013 14:21:12 GMT -6
Jazz, try not to read to much into attitude of a post, that is rarely interpreted accurately, I believe MJB is well intended as we all are here. I disagree with his "burl" thing, i don't like color in my conversion, but a lot of guys do, and think the burls are the greatest! it's ultimately about what works for you as an individual and as an audio mixer.
Can you link the SOS pre thing you were talking about? sounds like a good read.
thanx
T
|
|
|
|
Post by LesC on Sept 11, 2013 15:17:20 GMT -6
Sure, it's humorous. It's strange and seems time consuming and irrelevant, but Ethan is still 100% right in his theory. He's just looking at it from a scientist point of view rather than a user's point of view. His job is the details that nobody sees or really cares about. Sometimes those details are a lot more complicated than anyone would ever guess and communicating those ideas is hard, even without opinions and emotions flying. I suspect there is a disconnect between the designer and the casual tinkerer and the way they think, that leads to back and forth threads like this. What I find humorous is that Ethan chooses the "scientific" point of view when it corroborates his view, and chooses to ignore it otherwise. For example, he fairly confidently states that a certain microphone can't be improved by modding. The "science" behind this is that he's never even heard of the microphone, let alone listened to it, but because he considers it expensive, it must be perfect. Where is the double-blind test confirming this opinion? I'd love to hear about the complicated details that don't allow us mere mortals to understand this way of thinking. Another example. In this or another thread, I'm too lazy to try to find it, Ethan quite correctly stated that measurement devices are much more sensitive than the human ear. Yet the article he linked to, which debunks any improvement whatsoever in hi-fi equipment, uses human ears exclusively, and is not a double-blind test. This is a lax test method that Ethan would never accept if it "proved" something counter to his belief. Another example. Ethan's view seems to be that we are wasting our time when we place different microphones in front of vocalists, because we can't place the mics in absolutely identical locations and we can't get the same vocal performance at different times. This somehow "scientifically" proves that any difference we hear between microphones is either imaginary or is irrelevant. To me, personally, all this really is simply humorous. But I do feel sorry for someone like MJB, who 100% KNOWS that he hears a difference, and that is discounted because we can't explain why. If we can't measure it, it can't exist, seems to be the mantra in the name of science. I don't think the disconnect is between the designer and the casual tinkerer, I think the disconnect is someone simply not believing that they don't understand absolutely everything there is to know. |
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Sept 11, 2013 17:25:01 GMT -6
And to be cynical for a moment, all Ethan's opinions revolve around recording gear isn't worth spending money on, however, his bass traps ARE obviously night and day differences.
As if somehow a $300 LDC would be perfectly great in a room full of his treatments, while a U67 would sound utterly terrible with some simple spot treatment with blankets and such. Which is patently 100% repeatably untrue. Which isn't to say acoustics don't play a significant role in recording. Its a solid thing to get going ought from the beginning even. But, to continually dismiss every single other aspect of the process as trivial and fooling ourselves is utterly chuckle and cringe worthy.
Here's my advice to those who are troubled by his ultimately calling your perception deception. Who gives a shit? To play devils advocate, everything he and others like him bring up are potential wastes. Of money. Of computing resources. No where does he claim any of these "myths" cause for worse audio. So, if you as an artist or engineer hear something...and like the way it sounds...who cares why? Do what you're gonna do. Go forth and make art.
And so that aim not misunderstood, I mean WHATEVER gear you have access to...never wait for "better" gear or confirmation that there's NO "better". Do it now. The only thing not to waste is time debating whether something else is a waste or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Sept 11, 2013 17:47:55 GMT -6
Jazz, try not to read to much into attitude of a post, that is rarely interpreted accurately, I believe MJB is well intended as we all are here. I disagree with his "burl" thing, i don't like color in my conversion, but a lot of guys do, and think the burls are the greatest! it's ultimately about what works for you as an individual and as an audio mixer. Can you link the SOS pre thing you were talking about? sounds like a good read. thanx T The article: www.soundonsound.com/sos/oct12/articles/preamps.htmThe files: www.soundonsound.com/sos/oct12/articles/preampsmedia.htmIt's an interesting one. The statistics show that we heard differences, but they were small. The results (Google "Pre-Amp Post Mortem", after doing the test if you're going to do it) are surprising for many. The Purple Forum got quite sore about it in general. With all this subjectivist stuff it's the inherent logic of the argument that by attacking an idea I'm attacking character that I take issue with. I don't feel I really presuppose any attitude. I'm just saying let's go with what we know and stop thinking that the way we think about things is perfect. Give our system a chance to work in a way that doesn't mean it's dealing with 50,000 at once. The pressure on a guy to say whether or not his ears can hear what the other guy can? (Is he better than me? What am I listening for? Is that it? Am I the only one not hearing it? This thing cost 60 K!? Can he even hear it?) I mean, forget about it. Sometimes people need counselling so they can see what's really going on in a more conducive context. The ABX is like counselling - you don't need to do it every day, but if something big comes up and you're not sure where you stand then it's not the worst idea. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Sept 11, 2013 18:22:20 GMT -6
Here's my advice to those who are troubled by his ultimately calling your perception deception. Who gives a shit? To play devils advocate, everything he and others like him bring up are potential wastes. Of money. Of computing resources. No where does he claim any of these "myths" cause for worse audio. So, if you as an artist or engineer hear something...and like the way it sounds...who cares why? Do what you're gonna do. Go forth and make art. And so that aim not misunderstood, I mean WHATEVER gear you have access to...never wait for "better" gear or confirmation that there's NO "better". Do it now. The only thing not to waste is time debating whether something else is a waste or not. This |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Sept 12, 2013 8:07:00 GMT -6
Thinking about it a bit, you're right. After spending huge amounts of money and time on "upgrading" gear over the years only to find that my room treatment, my mic choices and positioning technique, my amplifier quality, my guitar setup/strings/pickups, my drum tuning/head choices, my monitor choices, and finally my own ears made so much more difference than any single modification I made to any piece of gear, I suppose my desire to bring my enlightenment to the world, and hopefully help someone is really worthless because "who gives a shit", Right?
It's your prerogative to say that you don't agree with what I'm saying, but I implore you to at least listen to what I say without dismissing it simply because you don't like what I have to say. I'm only trying to save you guys headache and time I put myself through. I keep pushing this because I was as hard headed as you guys are now and I understand the desire to mod uncontrollably. It's quite the addiction.
|
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Sept 12, 2013 8:41:01 GMT -6
There isn't any real conflict I can see in your statement svart. I've enjoyed all your posts. You've found many "upgrades" such as "room treatment, my mic choices and positioning technique, my amplifier quality, my guitar setup/strings/pickups, my drum tuning/head choices, my monitor choices", have helped you more than other tweaks and mods. That might be helpful to those of us sitting on a fence regarding sound upgrade prioritizing. I think what popmann and John are referring to is something different than that. I've felt there has been an incredibly insulting attitude here, hiding behind an intelligent sounding, but convoluted argument.
The "who gives a shit" statement is one borne of frustration. Some might say "can't take the heat..etc" or "sorry if my reality check bugs you", well i've been online since Mac's were 512k, and believe me, I know insulting when I hear it, even when disguised in scientific tech speak. My hope here at RealGear is that it evolves into a bigger, better version of cowboy's UAD Apollo thread at GS. There, we've managed to have a troll free zone, with over 700,000 views, where there's been an amazingly helpful and supportive creative environment, and an unparalleled camaraderie. Telling me you can "prove" everything I know about listening to music is mistaken only serves to kill that potential.
Why bother with upgrades or tweaks if you can't tell the difference between a $100 Kenwood receiver with radio shack wire and a high end audio system when placed in some sort of test room? Believe me, in my environment, I can hear differences in all sorts of things perfectly. I don't need to "prove" that to anyone. One thing about online communication that's annoying is sometimes we give credence to someone who if you met in person, you'd laugh off, and wouldn't give a second thought to. Some folks are just buzz killers, no matter how "scientifically valid" they say their statements are.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Sept 12, 2013 11:41:31 GMT -6
Thinking about it a bit, you're right. After spending huge amounts of money and time on "upgrading" gear over the years only to find that my room treatment, my mic choices and positioning technique, my amplifier quality, my guitar setup/strings/pickups, my drum tuning/head choices, my monitor choices, and finally my own ears made so much more difference than any single modification I made to any piece of gear, I suppose my desire to bring my enlightenment to the world, and hopefully help someone is really worthless because "who gives a shit", Right? It's your prerogative to say that you don't agree with what I'm saying, but I implore you to at least listen to what I say without dismissing it simply because you don't like what I have to say. I'm only trying to save you guys headache and time I put myself through. I keep pushing this because I was as hard headed as you guys are now and I understand the desire to mod uncontrollably. It's quite the addiction. Svart, I think i've made it clear by now, that i'm a fan of yours, but this is frustrating and silly at this point, all those things in your first paragraph, do indeed make a significant difference, I agree with you on this, but for the love of God! if you're telling me that i cant hear a HUGE!!!!!! difference between a stock Soundcraft delta 200, and a J Williams modified delta 200, i'm telling you, you're absolutely WRONG!!! This will be the last time i say this on this thread, every little improvement we make, from guitar strings to a lower noise floor on a single piece of gear, is an improvement toward the end result! How is this not understood? and what is the argument here?? jeezz Any serious enthusiast/or pro will take an "all things matter" approach to what they do, Motorized racing enthusiasts/pro's of all sorts, take EVERY detail into consideration, from windshield material to lug nuts/ to seat foam, it all matters from a performance aspect. By some of the assertions made on this thread, Blackbird studios should just get mid grade equipment, and worry only about mic placement, and room treatment?? G Massenberg himself is an audio tinkerer/developer/designing master! He started somewhere, and probably for the same reasons i did, he wanted more performance out of his equipment. This whole "don't bother" thing, is un inspiring, and a non starter argument for any audio buff who's intellectually curious, and striving to have the best of what they can afford. Heres a list of things i have modded and hear sizable improvements from t o many mics to list, my mic locker is now awesome, because of mods/ and diy projects. I have been employing highest quality capsules, thinner ribbons, better transformers, and higher quality electronics, some circuit mods=marked improvements over stock, some dramatic, i've built diy C12's and U47's that sound incredible. Soundcraft delta 200 mixing board,J Williams mods= turned it from nothing to speak of, to HUGE, WIDE, FAST, AND CLEAN!, absolutely HI FI, and an absurd improvement over stock Aphex 651' compressors J Williams mods, opamp upgrade, power supply improvements=Quieter, cleaner, faster and more transparent, a subtle blanket off the speakers improvement. Dbx 166 compressors J Williams mods, power supply, opamps upgrades, That corp 2180 VCA's, lower noise, subtle blanket off the speakers improvement. Adcom gfa 555 amp J Williams mod, a pretty decent amp that now excites me. Has a smoothness to it now, another blanket off the speakers event.(see a pattern developing here?) Digi 002, BLA mod, this one goes with the Delta 200 mods, it's an absolutely absurd improvement, my unit has the FM clock installed. Blanced PSU feeding the studio(results yet to be determined) PSU upgrades on the console, and pretty much every PSU i could improve the quality of=lower noise, improved headroom. To further drive my point, here are some things I've built from DIY kits, a direct result of my getting into modding and tinkering with electronic circuits in the first place, and things i could have NEVER afforded to buy outright. i have built akg C12 clones, U47 clones, ribbon mics, 6-1176 rev D's, 2-1176 rev A's, 2- LA3A's, 11-Capi pieces, compex f760's on the table, etc. Anyone who tells me the above experiences, aren't taking my equipment and ability as an engineer, toward a higher level of performance, is simply missing it the point. Either that, or I'm a complete moron....ugh ohh lol! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2013 14:01:08 GMT -6
[Ethan] fairly confidently states that a certain microphone can't be improved by modding. I never said anything of the sort. In my post yesterday I even linked to a mic mod vendor that offers real evidence of improved fidelity. If you want to disagree with me, at least disagree with what I actually said!  I'm perfectly happy with single-blind tests if the results are as expected. That test might be suspect if people were able to reliably identify "high resolution" audio versus the same audio after passing through a 44/16 bottleneck. But the null result shows that those running the tests didn't inadvertently cue the listeners. So for that reason single blind was fine. More to the point, this was done as a listening test after measurements already showed that nobody should be able to hear a difference. The problem is some people refuse to accept measurements, and only accept listening tests. So that's what the testers did. A listening test is also needed to show at what level measurable differences can be heard. I can show you two preamps where one has 0.002 percent distortion and the other has 0.05 percent. Will one sound more distorted than the other? Or is the distortion of both too soft to hear? The only way to know is with a proper listening test. Again, you either misunderstand or misrepresent what I said. I never said that all comparisons are useless. What I said is that to be scientifically valid, you have to remove every cause for a difference that's not part of what you're comparing. If the goal is to identify by listening whether one microphone sounds better or even different than another after modding, then putting the two mics in different places negates the test. Actually, this is exactly true. I'm pretty sure I mentioned the null test already in this thread. If not, let me know and I'll explain why it proves beyond all doubt that the current state of measuring is complete. Finally  let me point out that this thread is about capacitors, and whether upgrading them can improve audio quality. It's not about the many other things that mic modders often do. --Ethan |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2013 14:11:18 GMT -6
Second point=(you pulled my quote out of context ) That certainly wasn't my intent. I do tend to do that.  But in all honesty, I'm too old and too grumpy (and too lazy) to precede everything I say with "Now, it's possible that I'm wrong, and I do respect all opposing opinions" etc. I'm 99.9 percent confident of my position on this stuff, and I'm glad to explain further when needed. I totally agree with that. From my Audio Expert book: --Ethan |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2013 14:20:47 GMT -6
So ok, Tony,
you list alot of stuff that absolutely falls in the category that some people over at the "not mentioned" forum would mark "low end", stuff, that undoubtably can be upgraded, because there is e.g. price cuts in design and or actual parts selection and or build quality and or QA/QS (well - this is probably the least one of the probs). Let's call it mid cost workhorses kind of stuff.
Sometimes you can bet that the original designers prototype was much better quality as the series model from the shelf.
Countless units that use e.g. 4558 or 4560 4580 type opamps - because of a few cent price difference and seemingly (datasheet, but more like an advertising and marketing type of) better performance - while i would bet that the first prototype had NE5532/NE5534 inside.
Because some of the circuits beg for it and sound so much better with a direct drop-in replacement.
And to go even further - i like the NE5532 from Signetics best. As did e.g. the Tonographie Apparatebau (TAB) engineers and lots of others.
But now - how would you mod a piece of gear that is built without compromise?
You mentioned G. Massenburg: Would you mod his Master EQ, if you had one? Probably not, because it is very queationable you could gain anything with a mod. Very good proprietary opamps for the tasks, undoubtly a probably overdesigned PSU, it measures well in terms of distotion etc.pp. and does what it claims it does.
An example would be the german broadcast gear that was built to fullfill standards exactly and where the price tag never was the ultimate problem - the official german broadcast systems have the biggest budgets worlwide and are even implemented in our constitution.
So, if you buy a new Neumann resp. Gefell Mic, would you mod it?
Well - probably yes. You might do mods, that let it sound like an old microphone.
From a design engineers point of view it is actually degradation. From a design engineers perspective, large diaphragm microphones are an anachronism and far inferior to SDCs.
(Words from a Neumann microphone engineer, not mine...)
Why do we like the sound of the U47? Because we are used to it in countless recordings we heard since we hear music.
Is the VF14M a superior tube? No. There are much better audio tubes. For probably less than 10 bucks. It was available and sturdy. In fact runs too hot in the U47 and just therefore the capsule is less prone to humidity. Call it a design flaw.
What is the ideal sound of an audio tube? None.
We just use it's flaws as distortion elements, because we like to hear that. That's it.
Once i liked an AD better with an external WC. Why? Bc. i liked the bass distortion it had, the degradation.
Mojo is the sound degradation we used to hear and have warm memories of. That's all.
There are sound engineers that love the transistor distortion more than tube distortion.
Most are younger than me and did not hear their first records on a tube radio and record player mobiliar....
Or they do not play electric guitar or love it really, maybe.
Well, and back to the topic in the beginning...if you try to objectively upgrade a ยง2,500 mic, you most probably not upgrade it, because it should not really have serious flaws, but you try to change it's sound, so that it mimics what you think C12 or U47 or whatever *should* sound like. If this should really be anything like objective, you should better have the original, unmodified, unused, unserviced atom bomb proofed hermetically sealed and stored original in the drawer.
Well yes, a few of them sound the same. If they were bought from the same batch at the same time and used at the same time for the same time and serviced by the same tech. Sort of that.
OK, exaggerated, but you get the picture....
Is a special capacitor upgrade in a mic an upgrade or just a change to a nearer position to an even unknown ideal?
Well, everybody might judge this for himself.
It is no question that it is completely fine to do that stuff. It even makes fun.
For me, part of the fun ends, if a capacitor for audio should make a $5,000 difference in the end. Which it sometimes aparently does, according to marketing buzzes...
best regards,
Martin
|
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Sept 12, 2013 14:57:37 GMT -6
great post small, the designation between "color" and "hi fi", was made earlier on the thread, but great points none the less.
T
|
|
|
|
Post by LesC on Sept 12, 2013 15:07:56 GMT -6
[Ethan] fairly confidently states that a certain microphone can't be improved by modding. I never said anything of the sort. In my post yesterday I even linked to a mic mod vendor that offers real evidence of improved fidelity. If you want to disagree with me, at least disagree with what I actually said! n Ethan, I was basing my statement on these two posts of yours: That's a high-end microphone. Why do you think anything could be done to improve the sound? At that price I'd expect the manufacturer to have done everything necessary to ensure the highest quality! --Ethan I was going by price only. I never tried or even heard of that particular mic model. But how could a microphone that costs $1,500 not be a "high end" type? As for listening tests of microphones or capacitors or anything else, the universal problem I see is the tests are invalid for various reasons. Usually they compare different performances, and for microphones the mic placements are never identical. When capacitor "upgrades" are compared properly - which is admittedly difficult though not impossible - improvements that had been obvious suddenly become impossible to distinguish. --Ethan If I misunderstood these posts, I apologize. But it still seems to me that you were saying the microphone can't be improved by modding, isn't that what "Why do you think anything could be done to improve the sound?" means? Or were you writing this tongue in cheek, way over my head. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Sept 12, 2013 15:13:24 GMT -6
I have to admit, these are the kind of threads that annoyed me over at GS...I think we've hashed it out enough.
|
|
) In my view, you were coming off totalitarian in your view, i think now i see now that i misunderstood your position. I assess my mods one piece at a time, i figured i would put this chain of identical unmodded and modded units together, to blow away the myth that mods don't work, i am 100% positive that ANYONE could hear an absolutely huge difference in these 2 chains, even in a blind internet test with no intimate knowledge of the gear in use.
let me point out that this thread is about capacitors, and whether upgrading them can improve audio quality. It's not about the many other things that mic modders often do.
But in all honesty, I'm too old and too grumpy (and too lazy) to precede everything I say with "Now, it's possible that I'm wrong, and I do respect all opposing opinions" etc. I'm 99.9 percent confident of my position on this stuff, and I'm glad to explain further when needed.