Don't know...

But I much prefer 'the other or so'.

Keep only these
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 40, 41, 42, 47, 48, 50, 67, 68, 85, 86, 88, 110, 111, 112, 114, 115, 118, 119, 120, 121, 123, 125, 126, 153, 175, 176, 221, 298, 316, 362

The first selection criterion was if the post can help someone learn something without distracting side-tones and under-tones. Second, that it stayed quite close to the OP topic. Some unworthy posts were retained for context, mainly to make sense of Tony Faulkner's posts as he's the member who revived this thread.

I don't think it is a good idea to let forum members decide or pick which contributions by other members to a thread to keep and which to drop. This selection is bound to be biased one way or the other and will cause more controversy.

If at all, it would be the moderator's job to weed through the thread IMHO.

Why is that? Would you say it's the mics or the mix?

I agree!

But it's possible for the writers of each post to remove theirs, if they believe they just got carried away arguing...

::
Mads

I had that idea, too... That would be a good alternative approach.

Could you explain why the post no. 44 including two piano samples from a Rode NT5 pair and a Schoeps pair with the only text

should be removed from a thread entitled Schoeps MK4, how much better than Rode NT5 according to your criterion ?
Because too many people (300) spend time by listening these samples ?

And removing all the other posts ? Great for the plurality of opinions!

I cannot listen again now. I remember only that I felt the choir more beautiful in this sample. I would say it is likely the mix. There were too many mics and not so different in quality range (it is not a Rode vs. Schoeps type comparison) for the mics identities being the main cause.

No, of course not Didier, I see what you did there! ;-)

I did enjoy your samples and listened to them all, what did you think of the piano sound as you heard it in the room and the recorded sound from each of the mics?

I don't know, but it sounds to me like already making some dramatic personal theoretical "religion" out of all that ... This is just a casual chat, nothing else ... Somebody says he likes something better than something else, or what differences he perceives - which is normal and natural and that's all and that's what we like and expect ...
Everybody is welcome to do that. If you don't like it, better don't come here - because this is what it is about ...

But instead of sharing something or contributing by something real, starting just preaching and dogmatically telling that nothing can ever be compared (just "nonsense", "worthless", "entertainment", "fun" "without any value"), ridiculing everybody's effort to document something (without bringing anything at all on one's own, being hidden behind an anonymous curtain) - this is what in my opinion spoils a usefulness of a discussion. And this is what I tried to point at. Just my feeling and opinion. I always, out of enthusiasm, tried to share many things, many examples (since apart from music itself I am quite passionate about this sound alchemy and also - so many interesting units, microphones etc. came here in the course time). But if there is a new hobby of some people here to immediately dismiss and ridicule (or doubt) anyone who feels like sharing his findings and preferences based on his real experience, then what to do ...

It is very easy just to anonymously criticize others without bringing ever any example of one's own work, any comparison samples (once you surely know how to make them perfectly and scientifically) - but in my opinion it is not much useful ...

Yep, better be quiet when someone compares apples to cucumbers and let "everyone" keep on believing that price is a performance parameter.


/Peter

That test indicates that of those mic's and with those performances (which was different, yes?) MK21 was prefered by most listeners.

What that test does not proove is that Schoeps by definition is a premium manufacturer of all types of mic's.

Why don't compare apples to apples instead of apples to cucumbers?

Get a Line Audio CM3 which is the mic closest to MK21 on the market AFAIK.

Very similar frequency response and polar pattern which is the most singificant parameters of microphones and speakers. Slightly lower sensitivity and higher noise though.

Tests are often fun and enlightning in some way or another but let's not draw erroneous conclusions as a result of assumptions, misunderstandings or flawed test methodology (generally speaking).


/Peter

If your intention is to compare cardiod to omni, condenser to ribbon etc. (to hear the differences), it is just right ... If I want to find out how a guitar would sound if recorded on ribbon vs. recorded on condenser omni vs. recorded on hypercardioid - how else it could be found than to do it and to carefully compare the results ? Or you would strictly prohibit such comparisons ? (BTW - I think comparing "cucumbers to apples" would be rather comparing a microphone to compressor or equaliser to convertor, but not comparing two microphones - microphones are all apples of various kinds :-)

Somebody says this is piano recorded on 1) Schoeps MK21 2) Rode NT5 .... So we simply hear how the piano sounds when recorded on MK21 and NT5. How else to find out the difference between MK21 and NT5 on that piano in that room ? Could you please tell me ?

Life is not just numbers, scales or science. We are not moving with Wall Street market here. We are just sharing our personal experience and preferences here or showing how something sounds at our places ... That's all my friend ... Just don't be so serious and relax a bit :-). And please share something of your music or your recordings. It would be so nice. I don't remember you ever did that.


Yes, it is possible. But on the other hand - why shall we always compare the things that are very similar, when you need 150 "blind tests" to be sure you hear some real difference at all ? This is often not useful for a practical life and music. There it is often VERY useful to compare few different options, where the difference is quite obvious and to select the one YOU like the best ... The real music and sound are just about liking (which everybody should be allowed to express), not about theory, measuring and science ... You cannot measure the beauty ...

Because comparing two microphones has no real value heh

But anyway - based on this thread I already arranged a pair of NT5 coming here for trying. But I will better not post any findings or samples here ... :-)

Do you think it is fair to remove single posts? If something, then I suggest that the whole thing goes. Its like the gigantic garbage-ball from Futurama, and it has done more harm then good until now.

Now you're twisting my words Ivo. Of course one should compare different types of mic's (omnis vs. directional.. condensers against dynamics and so on..) in order to find out what one prefer for this or that job.

What I object to is using a type of mic side by side with another type of mic and draw conclusions about the brand name from that.. that's just a sign of ignorance.

You use the right tools (according to preference sometimes) for the job.

You don't test a Hilti jackhammer against a Bosch jigsaw just because they both can be used to build a house and then go on claiming that Hilti is a better brand than Bosch just because it makes better holes.

Please stop this childishness.

Audio engineering is and especially when it comes to gear performance.

Yes, and some sell gear.. while other is on a journey of education and I point out mistakes and flaws when other fail to realize it. I see internet as a common ground for sharing information. I see no place for false information or lies.

I am relaxed and I have a lot of fun being involved with media arts but I do take it seriously, It's my biggest passion and partly my livelyhood.

Sharing experiences and preferences is one thing and I do that myself from time to time but one still must realize that there's a difference between facts and opinions. Unfortunately prestige seems to be an obstacle far to often.

I've done that a couple of times but it has nothing to do with the things I present here. As I have said before many times, facts and science stands on their own feets.


/Peter

Yes, when manufacturing and designing, some technicalities are needed, but the main thing is always the aesthetics here. That cannot be defined, cannot be measured, can be just shared and perceived individually. Specifications etc. mean very little in this regard.

When you for examples "evaluate" some food, you are usually not reading charts with chemical analysis of the ingredients, but you just taste and perceive it with your tongue and have some feelings inside (while exactly the same ingredients and "specifications" can create quite different tastes in the hands of various cooks). The same with music and sound.

The point of all the gear is to create nice, tasty, artistic sound. But this very point and result cannot be "measured" in any way. It can be just perceived and felt subjectively ... This is where we will always differ. There is no "science" behind it ... Since beauty and science are quite different things. You cannot define beauty and pleasentness , you cannot make any objective scale of it ... Because then, it would lose its beauty

Perhaps the only argument I'd make contrary to this is that specs/FR plots/pattern diagrams do provide part of a basis for deciding on mics purchases. I use my NT4 in certain situations... but when I wanted a "fuller-sounding" main cardioid pair, the MKH8040 spec sheet (plus the price, plus strong recommendations from folks I trust) was what I needed to not spend north of $2,000US "blindly".

I can't say I listened to a lot of shootouts, but the rec's from people engaged in recording similar events to my calendar, combined with plots which portended a flatter, more accurate (especially in the bottom octaves) response than the Rode... well, my ears (and those of my clients) bore out what was portrayed on paper. For me, in building my "basic" location mics package, it all worked together to produce a result I am happy with.

Now... if I could just get my dang technique to the levels of performance of my mics...

While beauty itself can not be measured we can study human hearing and physics and learn how measured performance correlates with what we hear.

I'm seeker of truth and knowledge and if possible I avoid trial and error and base my decisions on understanding of the subject.

Still you can study chemistry and biology and get a very good grip on why different foods taste the way they do. Obviously I don't analyze when at a restaurant but people in the food industry (and to some extent chefs) have good understanding of this.

Sure, many areas in life are complex but if we can make a map on part of the terrain I say why not?

To some, and sometimes.. but don't forget and please respect those who strive for a true capture of an event. With technological advancement and better understanding of the human auditory system and brain we can get closer to virtual reality.

Of course I can enjoy a music performance on a budget stereo but part of my interest in music and audio engineering is the entertaining factor with breathtaking performance if possible. We will not advance this field without understanding of physics and psychoacoustics.

Stumbling in the dark picking this or that piece becasue it works well in this or that scenario is not my most prefered method but one I use when I lack understanding. Hopefully I gain knowledge sometimes even in that process though.

Science IS beauty.. :-) Science is undertstanding things around us and within us.

Everything involved with audio that makes you perceive and feel something can be measured and quantified. Not "beauty" but the actual signal that hits your ears. Beauty only exists within your brain (which is a mystery in many regards still.. not only yours of course.. ;-).

Having a scientifical approach does not mean you are closed to the artistic and subjective part of life.

Science is understanding or searching for answers and science is knowing instead of believing. Science is not the opposite to beauty, creativity or artistry.


/Peter

Very interesting topic and ideas, but shifting it to a dedicated thread (say - Sound: objective vs subjective or so) would make sense for further refining the ideas ?

In the meantime you may have a look at the Platon's dialogue "Hippias major" - probably unsurpassable insight in what "beauty" is or is not ... :-)

Maybe I cut too deeply. I have little use for clips posted for comparison without any explanation of capture conditions or controls that make a comparison trustworthy.

P.S. I rose to the challenge. Instead of complaining about my list you could send yours. Multiple inputs will probably help Steve clean up our mess.

thumbsupthumbsupthumbsup

This sort of mindset is not only unprofessional, and in these days illogical but also counterproductive.

it is nothing more than Elitism. History has shown us over and over and over that the equipment is relatively unimportant in the scheme of things...and the differences between two professional mics are so very trivial that it makes me question where people's heads are.

I edited my post no.44 for providing what you requested. Hope that it will be sufficient for it to survive...

I don't have any taste for censorship.

I dunno.

Maybe it's just OCD on my part but, being a sound guy, isn't it my job to obsess over these minutiae?

I know, I know - the music is the primary concern, but isn't it that last 2% that really makes us better than some random chimpanzee who can put up any old mic, point it at something and hit a flashing red button?

For me, the real test of quality is not determined in some AB test, but in day in and day out performance - how does it respond to EQ? What does the off-axis response do to my mix when I bring it up? How does it stand up to the most challenging circumstances? In what and how many situations does it shine?

Maybe it just doesn't matter to some; maybe for most, the difference just isn't significant enough to be worth the price. I am no "golden ear," I have exactly zero Grammy's to my credit, so take my opinions with a massive grain of salt.

But I just can't stop from trying to improve my product until it is as polished as I can make it. I can only hope that my clients appreciate the efforts and the end result.