Early Music Chamber concert recording report w/ clips

[andy_simpson]

Originally Posted by ghellquist

Oops.

Andy, I believe this can turn nasty for all the wrong reasons.

I understand that you really believe in your microphones. The rest of us has never used them. And we all tend to take marketing with quite a bit of salt, and, well, you do the selling so how can we tell really.

There is in my mind actually a real risk that what you write will turn potential customers away. Just think a second, assuming that your microphones will only make recordings that sound good on very good speakers. But the rest of the world uses headphones (as witnessed by one of the reviewers) so clearly these microphones are totally worthless except for a very small group of people. Let us not end up there.

Please go on and convince us with fantastic recordings, but accept that not everyone will love them. This goes for any product, after all this is gearslutz and for every product one person loves over everything there is at least ten persons hating it.

Gunnar

Gunnar, I not only accept that not everybody will love the recordings - I am saying that it is not possible for everybody to love them and I am interested in the reasons why.

Andy

[d_fu]

I don't think there is any need for anything turning "nasty"... As far as I'm concerned, whatever I say, comment on, or even criticize is never intended to be personal. I have great respect for Andy's work in principle - designing his own microphones and even developing new technologies. I also don't really object to the way he is presenting them here. I think he considers this forum a testing ground rather than a marketplace in which to tout his products (I could never afford them anyhow, BTW)... What I'd like to see is a bit more of technical background, beyond the rather scarce information concerning "acoustic impedance" on the website. Why and how do these funny-looking things achieve what they claim to do? What does a horn in front of the diaphragm do? Are there any conventional graphs for frequency response and polar patterns?

All I can say that I'm not very enthusiastic about the samples I've heard (some of those I've commented on earlier have been removed, I don't know whether this has to do with what I said). Both with headphones and speakers I sometimes have the impression of a "wall of sound" in quite a different sense - a rather "flat" sound with little depth of field, quite contrary to the claims made (e.g. with the Gregorian chant samples).

Originally Posted by andy_simpson

Gunnar, I not only accept that not everybody will love the recordings - I am saying that it is not possible for everybody to love them and I am interested in the reasons why.

IMHO trying to find the reason in people's playback systems and playback SPL will not lead to any revelation.

Originally Posted by andy_simpson

The easiest method is to arrange a pair of speakers either side of the source, calibrate recording/playback equipment for closest resemblence, make a number of brief recordings, bring in the subjects, arrange for a randomly selected 'play list' and alternate between reproduction & real performance according to the list, asking the blindfolded listener(s) to judge each brief performance as real/false.

I don't believe this can possibly succeed, at least not in a room/hall with any kind of natural ambience... Unless you move the mics up really close, your mics will capture this ambience/reverb, and speaker playback in the same acoustics will add more ambience and make reproduction easily discernible from the original. And if you move the mics right up, you won't likely get the "natural" sound you're after.

Daniel

[sonare]

Perhaps these are the most amazing microphones on the planet (or ANY planet), but I run a business. Your mics are $32,000 a pair.

It really doesn't matter that much what I think, because my competitors will also look to their bottom line. So far my customers are not unhappy with the sound I furnish, so apart from the ever-present personal quest for audio perfection I cannot responsibly embark on such a capitol investment unless it brings more clients and allows me to increase fees because they all clamor for it.

Perhaps the Sony/Sonoma marketing model might bear study.

Rich

[Corran]

Andy, if you were to guess, what kind of frequency response do you think your mics would have? Also, I believe you mentioned that they had something close to a cardioid pickup pattern, right? If not, what do you think the polar pattern would be?

It intrigues me, because to me the "perfect microphone" would be one in which the frequency response is flat as possible at all distances and angles and picked up sound generally like your ears (so, maybe two mics in A-B with a Jecklin disc, though I don't have a J-disc so I usually get by with an ORTF pair and an A-B pair mixed to get that balance between instruments and room). This is my "reasoning" for using Earthworks mics (self-noise be damned, I can fix that in the computer).

Also, is it only because you have a horn stuck on the end of the mic that you really suggest having a horn-driven speaker play back the recording? I could understand that, but then, I would wonder what your mics would sound like sans-horn.

[Roland]

Originally Posted by sonare

Perhaps these are the most amazing microphones on the planet (or ANY planet), but I run a business. Your mics are $32,000 a pair.

It really doesn't matter that much what I think, because my competitors will also look to their bottom line. So far my customers are not unhappy with the sound I furnish, so apart from the ever-present personal quest for audio perfection I cannot responsibly embark on such a capitol investment unless it brings more clients and allows me to increase fees because they all clamor for it.

Perhaps the Sony/Sonoma marketing model might bear study.

Rich

Is this for real?

I thought that they were around the £600-£1,000 each mark. For me they don't blow away the microphones I'm used to recording with on a daily basis (in my honest opinion most of the samples I have heard, are not really satisfactory), the mounting of them is impractical for the work I do.

I'm not convinced about the impedance matching idea, in fact I would have thought that this would lead to much higher SPL's on the diaphragm causing them to reach distortion levels earlier

Has anyone bought any, ever?


Regards


Roland

[sonare]

Unless I have misunderstood his website or my currency calculator has had a stroke, that's the price.

Rich

[Larry Elliott]

Rich

I do think your currency converter has haemorrhaged!

Larry

[Larry Elliott]

OOPPPS - Just re-read the prices on the web site - these are 10x what I was advised about a year back.

[sonare]

This from the Simpson website:

Model A (Single), Boxed - 9,995-00 GBP

Model A (Matched pair), Boxed - 17,995-00 GBP

Model A (5-piece Matched Surround Set), Boxed - 42,995-00 GBP

Rich

[mljung]

Originally Posted by sonare

This from the Simpson website:

Model A (Single), Boxed - 9,995-00 GBP

Model A (Matched pair), Boxed - 17,995-00 GBP

Model A (5-piece Matched Surround Set), Boxed - 42,995-00 GBP

Rich

Think about all those wonderful microphones out there you could buy for this amount of money. Given the audio-samples we have heard this far I can't see why one should bother one second about model A. I have to admit that I'm shocked.

One could get a full surround set of Schoeps for the price of one Model A.


This must be an error in the price list, don't you think?

[Roland]

Originally Posted by Larry Elliott

OOPPPS - Just re-read the prices on the web site - these are 10x what I was advised about a year back.

I'm not sure that he has sold any, but I am convinced that he won't sell any at that money, the samples posted at the begining of this thread slound "live" but that in my opinion is down to the midrange colouration I heard, probably a function of the horn, someone, on a previous thread, mentioned that they needed an correction curve applied to the raw signal to make them usable, however, typical of this kind of product there are a lot of claims and no technical data and measurements to back them up. As I mentioned earlier in the thread despite Andy's claims about preserving depth perspective this particular recording seems to have no perspective and the claims about using a pair of Mackie SR450's for reproduction IMHO can't be taken seriously.

Regards



Roland

[d_fu]

Andy

Could you tell me the name of that piece with the singers? Sounds familiar somehow.

My Beyer DT880 Pro is back, and the two clips sound nicer on these - especially after swapping channels, which significantly improves the sound quality...
Makes it sound a lot more realistic, in fact.

Still no strong feeling of depth, but an overall pleasant sound, due to no small extent to the lovely performance... I don't think you mentioned how the mics were spaced and angled, are they parallel. Considering the distance from the ensemble, the sound is indeed quite present.
On headphones, I find the stereo base a but too wide maybe. There's a slight hint of a hole in the middle.
And there still is a certain mid-range overpresence.

I wasn't going to do this, but on these phones, taking out a fairly broad range centering around 800k (down about 3 to 4 dB) certainly helps to make the sound a bit less muddled, esp. in the more complex passages. But I don' want to go very far into this excercise...

If I had the money for a pair of your mics and was allowed to spend it on mics only, I'd still buy a few TLM 150s or so...

D.

[andy_simpson]

Originally Posted by d_fu

I don't think there is any need for anything turning "nasty"... As far as I'm concerned, whatever I say, comment on, or even criticize is never intended to be personal. I have great respect for Andy's work in principle - designing his own microphones and even developing new technologies. I also don't really object to the way he is presenting them here. I think he considers this forum a testing ground rather than a marketplace in which to tout his products (I could never afford them anyhow, BTW)...

Indeed, I don't find Daniel or anybody else to be in any way nasty - at least not any more so that I am!

Passion, enthusiasm, scepticism, challenge, argument and so on are all a healthy part of progress.

What I'd like to see is a bit more of technical background, beyond the rather scarce information concerning "acoustic impedance" on the website. Why and how do these funny-looking things achieve what they claim to do? What does a horn in front of the diaphragm do?

When we consider the microphone as a mechanical system we can make better sense of the application of the acoustic loading 'horn'.

In physical terms, all mechanical error is subject to the acoustic impedance at which the microphone operates. It is not necessary to complicate the question with the exact nature of the mechanical error in order to understand the concept.

For example, a microphone diaphragm operating within solid steel, at the very very high acoustic impedance of steel, would be almost incapable of error.

On the other hand, a microphone operating in a vacuum would be capable only of error.

In this way, with raised acoustic impedance, the Model A achieves significantly reduced mechanical error, relative to conventional direct-radiator microphones.

Are there any conventional graphs for frequency response and polar patterns?

Given the way in which frequency response graphs are 'massaged', averaged, smoothed and then rendered at very low visual resolution, and given the further fact that the Model A is designed to be calibrated, there is little point presenting a frequency response graph. This would be an almost worthless graph, as I'm sure anybody would be quick to point out.

Polar plots would be more useful perhaps to illustrate the rather unusual polar response where pickup is essentially flat 'on-pattern' and 'not at all' 'off-pattern' and also the transition to omni below the acoustically active range, but at this time I choose not to publish them for several proprietary-design reasons and don't feel that the end-user is at any great disadvantage in the absence.

IMHO trying to find the reason in people's playback systems and playback SPL will not lead to any revelation.

Given the general lack of awareness of equal loudness in the industry, I don't agree with this.

Regarding playback systems in general, the state of the mastering industry alone is evidence enough of the complete defecit of common understanding of mechanical/acoustic factors.

For example, where we see a speaker which is over-damped between 4k-5k, and an under-damped (resonant) microphone in the same area, the overall impression is likely to be of 'compensation' in spectral terms.

In this case the resulting sound quality will be significantly unnatural from both the microphone resonance and the limited dynamics of the speaker, despite the apparently ideal frequency response of the system as a whole.

I don't believe this can possibly succeed, at least not in a room/hall with any kind of natural ambience... Unless you move the mics up really close, your mics will capture this ambience/reverb, and speaker playback in the same acoustics will add more ambience and make reproduction easily discernible from the original. And if you move the mics right up, you won't likely get the "natural" sound you're after.

In my experience, the most critical factor in this test is simply the mechanical error performance of the microphone & speaker (which is dictated by acoustic impedance).

In other words, if we can present a reproduction with a low enough mechanical error, minor spectral differences will be perceived as nothing more than real sources with different spectral qualities.

On the other hand, if we present a reproduction with perfectly matched frequency response but with greater mechanical error the end result is that the source does not sound real, regardless of the ideal frequency domain.

In the same way, minor differences in reverb content are of little issue, as long as the essential mechanical performance is convincing.

To illustrate this idea, let's consider the case of reproduction of a single violin, in a space similar to that of my chamber recording.

In this case, on comparison between the source and the reproduction, if both sources are perceived as 'real' due to the lack of significant mechanical error, then without intimate knowledge of the violin itself, we cannot know which is real and which is not.

If there are differences in the amount of reverb, we will most likely perceive them, but not necessarily will we perceive this as a sign of an un-real source as much as simply a 'difference'.

In this case we can describe the differences, but we will likely perceive them as two different violins.

Andy

[andy_simpson]

Originally Posted by Corran

Andy, if you were to guess, what kind of frequency response do you think your mics would have? Also, I believe you mentioned that they had something close to a cardioid pickup pattern, right? If not, what do you think the polar pattern would be?

It intrigues me, because to me the "perfect microphone" would be one in which the frequency response is flat as possible at all distances and angles and picked up sound generally like your ears (so, maybe two mics in A-B with a Jecklin disc, though I don't have a J-disc so I usually get by with an ORTF pair and an A-B pair mixed to get that balance between instruments and room). This is my "reasoning" for using Earthworks mics (self-noise be damned, I can fix that in the computer).

Also, is it only because you have a horn stuck on the end of the mic that you really suggest having a horn-driven speaker play back the recording? I could understand that, but then, I would wonder what your mics would sound like sans-horn.

I think probably these points are answered in my previous reply to Daniel.

With regards to the 'perfect' microphone - as mentioned above, I consider mechanical performance to be of primary significance.

I don't suggest playback with horn-loaded speakers for anything other than ideal/maximum performance.

Reproduction on direct-radiators will not suffer any more than with conventional microphones.

To listen to the microphone with the acoustic loading (horn) removed is to drive a turbo-charged car with the turbo disconnected.

Andy

[andy_simpson]

Originally Posted by Roland

I'm not sure that he has sold any, but I am convinced that he won't sell any at that money, the samples posted at the begining of this thread slound "live" but that in my opinion is down to the midrange colouration I heard, probably a function of the horn, someone, on a previous thread, mentioned that they needed an correction curve applied to the raw signal to make them....

If you make even a cursory study of the design you will understand how there can be no colouration as a result of the 'horn' (not least in consideration of the planar propagation in question).

Regarding the calibration post-equalisation, you will need to recognise the difference between the time-domain & frequency domain in order to understand this.

usable, however, typical of this kind of product there are a lot of claims and no technical data and measurements to back them up. As I mentioned earlier in the thread despite Andy's claims about preserving depth perspective this particular recording seems to have no perspective and the claims about using a pair of Mackie SR450's for reproduction IMHO can't be taken seriously.

As I have described above, I use the Mackie SRM450 for its mechanical performance, which is close enough to ideal.

While they have minor issues (noise-floor for example), they are high-output, portable, clean and robust.

As I have said before, these speakers have gone through various revisions and the earlist (RCA driver) version is the only suitable version. I have no idea which version you have heard.

Regardless, these speakers are deceptively well designed and will drastically outperform ANY direct-radiators, especially with Model A recordings.

Andy

[0VU]

um.......incredible

Or incredulous

Or both.

[JEGG]

Originally Posted by 0VU

um.......incredible

Or incredulous

Or both.

Andy, I think at some point you'll have to realize that people are different one from another, and all from you.

I think you're a bit stuck on the "one best way," and that is fine, but realize it will be the "one best way, or approach, or microphone, or playback system" for YOU.

If you are waiting for the world to say that your way and your gear are the best, I'm afraid you'll be waiting for a very long time.

If there was a "best," there might not be any room in the world for you and/or your gear.

So I think it best if you allow room for others and their gear.

[RichS]

I'm waiting for the Model B, hopefully without the "midrange colouration" problem.

[andy_simpson]

Originally Posted by RichS

I'm waiting for the Model B, hopefully without the "midrange colouration" problem.

What I have been trying to say is that if you don't like the calibration applied in my sample recordings you can simply calibrate the Model A to your taste/monitors - that is the freedom of improved mechanical performance.

My samples are calibrated to best match in direct comparison, using high-powered horn-speakers. This calibration may or may not suit your application/monitors/taste.

In fact, the Model A is now sold with personal delivery/training & on-site calibration (which is part of the high cost shown in the revised pricing) and can be calibrated/voiced to any specification and for any specific application.

When I deliver mics to a client, if I don't manage to calibrate the mics to the total satisfaction of the client I will waive the cost entirely and leave the mics free of charge.

Andy

[Chris Wilson]

Before this thread, I was unaware that a market for a product/service like this could exist.

The couple people I know who record movie scores (orchestras and BIG budgets) who get to work in familiar and very good sounding locations might be the target clientele for mics like these.

I on the other hand, drag my stuff all over the city, and usually work in less than perfect rooms. Even if I had a $32,000 pair of mics, I personally wouldn't take them to a job that is paying at most $300.

Perhaps these mics are the hottest thing since the Brazilian wax, and perhaps someday we'll all have cathedrals to calibrate our equipment to, but for now, most of us are not Mr. Simpson's target clientele.

I'll probably never even see a pair of these in real life, but anyone who can pull this off certainly has my respect.

Congratulations Andy

[Corran]

I must say that, while I generally like the recordings that Andy puts up, even if these were the end-all-be-all of microphones I'd still never pay that much, personally.

[RichS]

Originally Posted by RichS

I'm waiting for the Model B, hopefully without the "midrange colouration" problem.

Andy,
Sorry... next time I'll be sure use one of these "" so you can tell I was just leaving a "smart-ass" comment and not necessarily a criticism of your mic's.

Your samples were interesting in that they sound more like what I experience as an early music vocal soloist standing in the midst of an instrument ensemble as opposed to listening from the audience position. It's something I noticed almost immediately, but wouldn't necessarily want in my recordings.

The one thing in your reply that caught my attention was that "the Model A...can be calibrated/voiced to any specification and for any specific application."

Are you saying there's a mechanical or electronic adjustment performed on the mic's at delivery? Can this adjustment drift over time or because of physical wear? What happens when I use different audio chains for mixing and mastering. Given the very nature of location recording, how can you possibly calibrate for an optimum acoustic response or application?

Not to be a "smart-ass" again, but I can buy 8 or 9 assorted matched pairs of Schoeps and a damn fine mastering EQ for the cost of one of your pairs.

Hmmm... I guess I just don't get it.

RichS

[andy_simpson]

Originally Posted by Chris Wilson

Before this thread, I was unaware that a market for a product/service like this could exist.

The couple people I know who record movie scores (orchestras and BIG budgets) who get to work in familiar and very good sounding locations might be the target clientele for mics like these.

Actually, for simply mechanical reasons this is the