HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: prj@gamba.lcs.mit.edu (Paul R. Johnson)
Subject: Re: Headphones for Monitoring Recording
Organization: lcs.mit.edu
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 13:08:15 GMT

In article <JANNE.ANTTILA.92Apr15131822@kannel.lut.fi>, Janne.Anttila@lut.fi (Janne Anttila) writes:
|> 
|> Try Sony's new closed headphone model CD-550. Its inexpensive and
|> sounds just fine.
|> 


And in article <1992Apr15.133841.29170@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
|> For a modern day Sony try the Sony MDR-CD550. I use it in live
|> recording and it is an excellent monitor. Very bulky and totally
|> enclosed. The bass is very good and the treble is not harsh.
|> Costs 50 pounds in the UK. PS Not the same as the MDR-CD555 -
|> more expensive and not so good.

Is this headphone as efficient as the Sony MDR-V6?  What is its frequency
response?  Are the MDR-CD750 and 850 to be avoided as well (these are the
ones Crutchfield carries)?

The MDR-V6 seems to be regarded as the tried-and-true workhorse for this application.  But perhaps times have changed.

---Paul Johnson
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: mbl@media.mit.edu (Marc LoCascio)
Subject: Re: How to mic drums.
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 17:43:27 GMT

In article <7APR199209510427@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov>, afdenis@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (Stephen Dennison) writes:
> In article <1992Apr7.060616.5548@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, payam@landau (Payam Mirrashidi) writes...

> >A question along the same lines: How do you eq a kick so it sounds strong and
> >tight and not boomy.  
> 
> *Personal* opinion ? Loose the RE20 and stick a 57 or even an MD-421...
> I have *always* found the RE20 to be BOOMY by default, 
> and in need of a lot of tweaking to get that tight solid `whack'. 

i'm a huge fan of PL20's on kick, so i'll add my 2 cents.  they do have a 
big, round bass sound.  if that's not what you're looking for, you might be
better off with a 421.  the PL20 has a bass roll-off switch (does the RE20?)
that gives a better approximation of the SM57/421 sound.  if you want some
control between the two sounds, leave the mic response flat and put a low EQ
shelf around 80Hz for roll-off.  you can also boost hi-mids around 2 KHz to
bring out the attack.

Marc LoCascio	(mbl@media-lab.media.mit.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov ( Scott Dorsey)
Subject: Re: Help sought on choosing microphones
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center And Storm Door Company
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 14:51:50 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.161101.13464@nntp.uoregon.edu> jrusby@darkwing (Jim Rusby) writes:
>The beauty of M-S is this- IF YOU ARE ONLY USING TWO MICS  you can put M on one channel and S on the other.  Get your levels right and do the L-R decoding later, like in the studio in a comfortable chair.  You could decode it immediately using either a ma
>trix box, or on a console with 3 pannable faders.

Umm... you might want to hit return a bit more often to make things somewhat
easier for us to read.

But I should point out that an M-S configuration is essentially going to
give you the same effect as a coincident pair, in that there will be no
phase differences between channels.  This really makes a mess of the imaging,
but on the other hand it makes it a lot easier to mix down to mono (and is
required by many FM broadcasters who are worried about listeners on mono
receivers).

What M-S does give you is the ability to adjust stereo separation after the
fact.  You can do this after the fact with a coincident recording, just by
using a couple pots and inverters, but the M-S configuration does make it
easier.

It also means that you can use a bidirectional ribbon mike and a cardioid
condenser for some interesting imaging effects.  I don't like this a bit,
but a lot of folks seem to.
--scott
technique does make it easier.
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: bussey@meaddata.com (Greg Bussey)
Subject: SHURE MIKES
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 16:00:07 GMT




Can anyone compare and contrast the SHURE SM57 to the SM58? I believe
the specs are identical. I can't hear any more difference than I hear
between different 57s. Is the extra $20 just for the windscreen?
From: kenyee@ksr.com (Ken Yee)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Subject: Re: awesome Klipschorns and speaker lifespan
Date: 7 Apr 92 21:54:12 EDT

jeq@i88.isc.com (Jonathan E. Quist) writes:
>What does "audiophile" have to do with "rec.audio.pro"?   :')
  Are you saying that professionals don't qualify as audiophiles ;-)?

 ken
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Re: Headphones for Monitoring Recording
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 20:32:11 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.141102.13182@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> prj@gamba.lcs.mit.edu (Paul R. Johnson) writes:
>What is the rec.audio.pro wisdom on the best headphones to use for
>live recording of concerts (in my case Early Music concerts)?
>I need ones that have closed/isolated earpieces so I don't
>disturb other people (I'll be in the audience), and that give an
>accurate representation of the sound (of course).

There are differences between headphones used for monitoring recordings
and headphones used for listening to playbacks at home.  

Probably the _best_ headset around for monitoring recordings is going to be
some electrostatic Stax model (and likely one that is discontinued).  But
these have the problem of being a) big, b) open-air, and c) expensive.

On balance, my vote goes to the good ol' Sony V6 headset, available at 
your local discount house for under $100.


--
Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ.     "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings 
gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu       to be seriously considered as a means of 
N2GPZ in ham radio circles        communication. The device is inherently of
72355,1226 on CI$                 no value to us." -Western Union memo, 1877
From: lijewski@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (K.M.Lijewski)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Subject: Re: McIntosh solid state amps
Date: 17 Apr 92 13:54:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Apr16.230039.26269@rice.edu>, caudle@spotted.owlnet.rice.edu (Chris Aaron Caudle) writes...
>How do the solid state amps by Mac (with output transformer)
>sound?  Specifically, older models (about 10-15 yrs), and
>how do they compare to the newer models by Mac, how do they
>compare to a good solid state amp overall?
> 
>thanks,
> 
>Chris Caudle           
>caudle@owlnet.rice.edu 


	I own several McIntosh amps, tubed and solid state, and have yet to
hear a difference. I have heard just about all their speakers and amps, as
well a many other manufacturers products. I have come to believe that a well
designed and built amplifier will have little or more commonly no charact-
erists of its own. The explaination McIntosh gives to the question why they 
don't make tube equipment any longer is that they find _no_ good mfgrs of
tubes any longer. I find the advantage of Power Gaurd (the limiting of the 
input signal when the distortion rises above .5%) to be an advantage the
newer amps have over the older ones, including the tube-type. You might
remember a law suite filled by McIntosh against Carver for stealling the
power gaurd circuitry (literally). Carver lost. Since then other mfgrs
have included clones of this idea in there amps. It is expensive to do
properly, and many mfgrs are competeing for price. McIntosh, now owned by
a Japanese firm (Clarion, I believe), has a very good reputation. I have 
design audio reproduction and reinforcement systems here at the University
at Buffalo, New York, using McIntosh equipment with outstanding results.
	The failure rate is nill, and operators who inteltionally or acc-
identally overdrive the system(s) are prevented by the headroom I design into
the system(s) and power gaurd adds an additional "brick wall."

	Kevin (lijewski@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu)
From: jhenders@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca (John Henders)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Organization:  One of these days.
Subject: Re: Killer Kick- was Re: How to mic drums.
	<1992Apr7.060616.5548@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
Reply-To: jhenders@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca
X-Software: HERMES GUS 1.00 Rev. Jan 16 1992
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 12:05:26 -0600

In <4267@gold.gvg.tek.com>, Chris Christensen writes:
>>(Payam Mirrashidi) writes:
>
>>> A question along the same lines: How do you eq a kick so it sounds strong and
>>> tight and not boomy.  I usually mix off of a 26 channel Soundcraft 400, so I
>>> have a low, a high and two parametric mids available.  In addition, I am 
>>using a RE20 mic. 
> 
>Here is an OLD one!  Use a gate to gate an oscilator via the sidechain input.
>You can tune the oscilator to what ever low frequency you want to, say 20 Hz!
>
>Then you mix that in with the kick mic and the
>gated-compressed-n-eq'ed signal that another poster suggested, Ya
>that'll do it! :-)
>
    And then you side chain the bass guitar through another gate, and mix
that in too. ;-)

    Seriously, one detail left out on the original question was, what front 
end is the output going to? Particularly the Bass Bins. If they're single
Martins, I'd say you have to be prepared to warp your eq seriously to get 
anything out of them on the kick. I've found with a parametric chained into 
a gate, that once I sweep down below 100, there's nothing there, even at 
16db of boost.
    To Payam, I'm amazed to see someone else with one of the 400 consoles.
I had one for a while, but around here, they're rare, as their reputation
for road worthiness is nil. Now 400b's of course, are all over the place.
I wish they had kept the highpass and lowpass points from the 400 on the 
a's and b's. 
    To get a live kick sound. Try this.. Slight boost on LF, say 3db
set mf parametric at 3-400hz, roll off about 6-10 db, boost mf 6-10db at 
somewhere between 3 and 6 k ( with an RE20, you may need more boost ) and
boost the hf about 6 db.
    I also agree with the poster who said dump the RE20. I'd take the 421
any day, or the EV mentioned by another poster, I can't remember the model
number, but it sounds real close to a 421. Also, positioning is important. 
I usually start 2/3 of the way into the kick, slightly off centre from 
where the beater hits the head. If the kick has a front head with a small
hole cut in it, try positioning the mike just inside, pointing directly
at the beater. As mentioned by another poster, gating is also a wonderful 
thing.

    Now, anyone want to talk about how to get rid of the "boink" in snare
drums? Especially when the drummer says he likes the sound of the drum the 
way it is?
    My vote usually goes to replacing the drummer. ;-}








    
-- 
       John Henders      jhenders@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca
    I think your "evolutionary scale" needs an adjustment.  Either 
      that, or you've got your thumb on it. -> (lefty@apple.com)
From: chrisc@gold.gvg.tek.com (Chris Christensen)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Subject: Re: Audiophile vs proAudio was  Re: awesome Klipschorns
Date: 13 Apr 92 17:02:59 GMT
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA

Bill, you used some text from one of my postings and didn't qoute me!

In article <1992Apr11.133904.5197@bilver.uucp> bill@bilver.uucp 
(Bill Vermillion) writes:
>In article <1992Apr09.211319.6760@i88.isc.com> jeq@i88.isc.com 
(Jonathan E. Quist) writes:
>>I said:
>>>>>What does "audiophile" have to do with "rec.audio.pro"?   :')
>
>>>In article <11284@ksr.com> kenyee@ksr.com (Ken Yee) writes:
>>>>  Are you saying that professionals don't qualify as audiophiles ;-)?
>
>>No, just that audiophiles don't generally qualify as professionals.
>>(Don't misunderstand - many do, just most don't.)
>
>I'm  not in pro-audio anymore, but when we built our studio we
>were audiophile types too.  We found that was a rarity.

Then I sez:

>>>I do not call myself an audiophile because that implies that I would
>>>own "audiophile" type equipment and criticaly listen to audio.  I do
>>>own equipment considered audiophile quality, I own a lot of equipment
>>>that is PRO only.  I listen a LOT to audio, critically as I am
>>>recording, editing, mastering, etc. ;-0  The concentration factor
>>>working as a mix engineer is very high, and I believe different than
>>>that of an audiophile's listening.  I have to be able to "hear" more
>>>than the usual three things that the average listener can detect.  I
>>>am forced to differentiate five or six different elements and
>>>instantly switch beween the forground and the background elements of a
>>>mix.

Then Bill says:

>I seem to read contradictions into the above, or more probably
>what you think of an audiophile and what I think as being an
>audiophile are two different animals.   And your reference to
>the 'three things and average listener ..' wouldn't fit any
>audiophile that I know of.

No contradictions intended or implied.  My observations only!  And I
did say "...average listener." and not audiophile.

I would suggest that our description of what is an audiophile would
actually come pretty close to the same.  The difference is that as an
audiophile you became an audiopro.

I was hopeing that you would expound on the elements of concentration
and the #'s of those that must be kept in mind whrn recording.  I layed
it out for what I do and I hope that you will lay it out for youe
experience!

(deleted text)
Then Bill says:

>I remain a happy person whose home unit sound better than 50% of the
>studios in town (at least).   But I surely would like to have a set of
>the Meyer monitors over at PARC.

I have only heard the Meyer's on the trade show floor,  but even in
that casual listening setting they shine brightly indeed!

-- 
Chris Christensen                  The opinions I express are my own,
chrisc@gold.gvg.tek.com            and sometimes they are wrong!
916-478-3419 FAX 916-478-3887      After all, I AM only human.
From: kenyee@ksr.com (Ken Yee)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Subject: pro vs. audiophile tastes was Re: Klipschorns
Date: 9 Apr 92 10:49:48 EDT

chrisc@gold.gvg.tek.com (Chris Christensen) writes:
>that of an audiophile's listening.  I have to be able to "hear" more
>than the usual three things that the average listener can detect.  I
>am forced to differentiate five or six different elements and
>instantly switch beween the forground and the background elements of a
>mix.
>So am I a ProAudiophile?   NOT!!!! Damn I wish it was Friday......:-)
  Interesting...so I can infer that Pro's are fussier than audiophiles
  since they are more critical?
  So what do pro's have for home equipment?  Enough to make audiophiles
  drool?

 ken
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: kiisaka@csi.uottawa.ca (Ken Iisaka (the mad pianist))
Subject: Re: How to record a clarinet ?
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 20:15:11 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.130902.26297@news.larc.nasa.gov> kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov ( Scott Dorsey) writes:
>What do you do with those musicians who have a tendency to wildly swing the
>instrument back and forth?  Even in a large concert hall, this causes some
>tonal changes from the point of view of someone in the audience, and it's
>much worse with a fairly (ie. 15-20 ft) close-in microphone.

Must remember that some movement is sometimes intentional.  Trumpet players 
and clarinet players regularly do this for effect.  Although it makes the
recording more difficult, it is also important to capture the variation in 
tonal quality produced by the movement of their instrument.

-- 
Ken Iisaka  kiisaka@csi.uottawa.ca | Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer, do.
Artificial Intelligence Laboratory | I'm half crazy over the love of you.
      University of Ottawa, Canada | It won't be a stylish marriage, I can't
         (613) 564-8155 / 789-2932 | afford a carriage,
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: tate@faxcsl.dcrt.nih.gov
Subject: Re: Long Cable Runs?
Organization: National Institutes of Health
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 16:45:55 GMT

In article <TONYB.92Apr10104246@titania.juliet.ll.mit.edu>
tonyb@juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Tony Berke ) writes:
>In article <gdtF=Ly00Uh_A__Jsy@andrew.cmu.edu> "Raymond C. Chick"
<rc4n+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>
>   I record classical music on location and often have long cable runs from
>   microphones to preamps or mixer.  To find a good monitoring room I may
>   have to use 150' to 300' of cable. Will this have any effect on s/n,
>   frequency responce, or any other things ?
>
>300 feet sounds a bit long.  Depending on your cable cables' capacitance
>and your mics' output impedance, you might be rolling off the treble a
>bit (or more than a bit).
>
[stuff deleted]

>So perhaps you'd be better off with a fairly short run from the mics to
>the preamps, then the long run to your monitoring location can be done
>with relative impunity from the preamp outputs.  Some mic pre's can be
>phantom powered, eliminating the need to have wires running
>everywhere ( assuming your mixer has phantom capabilities ).
>
[more stuff deleted]
>
>Tony
>
As I recall, 300 ft is a bit long; if you know the cable capacitance
(fairly high for the typical multipair "snake"), you can calculate the
rolloff [estimating the inductance]. At about this length the cable is
beginning to exhibit transmission line characteristics at the higher
end of the audio spectrum, so a proper terminating resistance might be
in order, too. The effects of length on frequency response are covered
in all the "good" books, a few of which are:

"Handbood for Sound Engineers: The New Audio Encylopedia, 2nd Edition"
Glen M. Ballou, Editor-in-Chief
SAMS List $99.95 ISBN 0-672-22752-2

"Sound System Engineering, 2nd Edition"
Don and Carolyn Davis
SAMS List $49.95 [a great buy] ISBN: 0-672-21857-7

"Audio Systems Design and Installation"
Phillip Giddings
SAMS List $59.95 ISBN: 0-672-22672-3
[mostly oriented toward permanent installation work]

NOTE: these are strictly my opinions, and do not reflect in any way the
      views of my employer (should he/she/it have any...)
========================================================================
Ramon L. Tate                                   tate@faxcsl.dcrt.nih.gov
Computer Systems Laboratory, DCRT
National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892
          So he asks me if I knew how fast I was going
          I said "No, but I knew exactly where I was." - copied


Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: dcovell@hfglobe.intel.com (David Covell)
Subject: Recording bass guitar
Organization: Development Tools Operation, Intel Corp., Hillsboro, OR
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 17:26:18 GMT


I have a pretty good start on my home studio setup and am working on my
own demo material, but I'm having an incredible struggle with getting even
a decent bass on tape. I've tried the obvious helps like compression,
narrow-band EQ, etc but am still far from satisfied.
I'm using a Tascam TSR-8 and mixing to DAT. Board is a rather inadequate
Tascam M-208, but I also have a Symetrics mike preamp which I use for
recording. I've tried all possible combinations of direct and miked, but
I just can't get the right sound. The only two possibilities that occur to
me are:
1. For direct I'm using a basic impedance-matching in-line transformer
rather than a more-expensive DI box. This could be hurting my freq response
since I assume the transformer is a cheap one.

2. The strings on my bass may not be my best choice. The bass is a good copy
of a '64 Precision and has half-round strings. The tone is not overly bright
like most round-wounds, but does seem to have more of a metallic overtone
than I really need. I don't relish the prospect of going back to old flat-
wounds ;^(

I can afford to buy a DI box but I don't want to unless it'll provide an
audible improvement. I've experimented with using the recording output on
my Mesa Boogie MKIV, but it doesn't really sound any better than the 
matching transformer.

So, what's the right approach? Is a DI box really necessary? I have a good
compressor and 31-band EQ, so perhaps I'm just not using them correctly.
I'd appreciate any hints/helps, as the bass sound is the worst aspect of
my recordings and is pretty frustrating. I have good monitors, so it's not
a problem of my hearing an accurate playback.
My material ranges from latin jazz to country and is mostly acoustic guitar
driven, so the bass has lots of space, both time and frequency-wise.
Thanks for any help.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID COVELL (dcovell@pcocd2.intel.com)|Wrangler of acoustic, electric, and
INTEL FOLSOM (California)              |Midi guitars, basses, synths, CAD tools
DESIGN ENGINEERING, EPG GROUP          |and assorted other techno-beasties
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: jeq@i88.isc.com (Jonathan E. Quist)
Subject: Re: awesome Klipschorns and speaker lifespan
Organization: INTERACTIVE Systems Corporation, Naperville, IL
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1992 21:13:19 GMT

I said:
>>>What does "audiophile" have to do with "rec.audio.pro"?   :')

>In article <11284@ksr.com> kenyee@ksr.com (Ken Yee) writes:
>>  Are you saying that professionals don't qualify as audiophiles ;-)?

No, just that audiophiles don't generally qualify as professionals.
(Don't misunderstand - many do, just most don't.)


In article <4247@gold.gvg.tek.com> chrisc@gold.gvg.tek.com (Chris Christensen) writes:
>I am paid to do sound work, people like what I do, I treat people in a
>"professional" manner when I execute my duties as an "audio
...
>I do not call myself an audiophile because that implies that I would
>own "audiophile" type equipment and criticaly listen to audio.  I do
>own equipment considered audiophile quality, I own a lot of equipment
>that is PRO only.  I listen a LOT to audio, critically as I am
>recording, editing, mastering, etc. ;-0  The concentration factor
>working as a mix engineer is very high, and I believe different than
>that of an audiophile's listening.  I have to be able to "hear" more
>than the usual three things that the average listener can detect.  I
>am forced to differentiate five or six different elements and
>instantly switch beween the forground and the background elements of a
>mix.

Which is necessary, because if you don't concentrate on all these things,
sooner or later an audiophile will whine about them... :')

>So am I a ProAudiophile?   NOT!!!! Damn I wish it was Friday......:-)

Yeah, what he said.  A classmate of mine interned at and spent several
years working as an engineer for WFMT in Chicago, a station which has
some of the highest technical standards in the world.  For his home
equipment, he'd get good, but not top quality;  the rationale being
that while he could afford audiophile equipment, it wasn't worth the
additional money, because it still wasn't as good as the stuff he worked
with day to day.  And no matter what, it'd still be located in a basement
apartment - he was accustomed to recording at Orchestra Hall, or pulling
prerecorded material off their satellite feed and remastering for U.S.
standards.  Since I spent a couple of years working with him in an
experimental audio lab, I asked him to teach me some of the basics of
professional audio.  Before he said anything else, he asked me if
I was prepared to never be satisfied with any equipment in my home
ever again...  I said no, and I remain a happy, semi-educated consumer.
-- 
Jonathan E. Quist                              INTERACTIVE Systems Corporation
jeq@i88.isc.com                                        Naperville, IL
'71 CL450-K4 "Gleep"  - "Worth the Obsession"
DoD #094        "I'm not mad; just terribly, terribly hurt."  HDM #007