The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Peluso-Making Mics sound like Classics, without the same Design? Condenser Microphones
Old 11th December 2004
  #61
Lives for gear
 
toledo3's Avatar
 

Squizz- the other companies are using high quality parts, and have only substituted the elements that they HAVE to, in order to make their microphones 47-esque. That is entirely different from Peluso.

A Lawson capsule is a high quality M7 reproduction, with a 3-micron capsule- similar to the way many people would get their mics modded to be even better than a regular 47.

The Soundelux mics get their capsules from MBHO, as far as I know- another high quality part.

To Musiclab-

Well... I am not sure what is meant by "getting capsules form telefunken". FYI, Telefunken never made any of the capsules in question on the originals- they just rebranded. Now, I think Telefunken USA at least stands a shot because of the investment they have put into their facility.... it still remains to be seen whether they have the "talent" to go with the investment.

All these companies are very different from a guy in sitting in his living room putting together parts he orders from Shanghai.
Old 11th December 2004
  #62
Gear Maniac
where do you have evidence peluso is using low quality parts. all chinese capsules arent low quality, just like not all chinese mics are low quality. yes a majority is but not all. Do you have any idea what the inside of one of his mics looks like? do you have his parts list? How can you make an assumption like he is using low quality parts? where are you getting that info from? How do you know peluso doesnt do the same thing in the sense of only subsituting parts HE feels he needs to? if your assumption about soudelux and lawson only subsituting the need parts then how come there designs are so different? how they dont sound exactly alike? there are both only subsituting the parts they need to.

how do you know he doesnt check each capsule himself before he uses them to ensure quality control? how do you know he doesnt do the same with his tubes? Yes i know there are quality control issues with chinese parts but how do you know peluso doesnt go through every part himsellf and scrap the ones that are not up to par?

i dont understand why no one wants this give this guy a fighting chance before shooting him down. he could be a very honest hard working guy,and his mics could be top shelf but you would never know cause you havent tried his mics and probably wont. you would rather critisize his mics blindly because of some unknown bias as opposed to go out and try them.
Old 11th December 2004
  #63
Quote:
Originally posted by toledo3
Squizz- the other companies are using high quality parts, and have only substituted the elements that they HAVE to, in order to make their microphones 47-esque. That is entirely different from Peluso.

A Lawson capsule is a high quality M7 reproduction, with a 3-micron capsule- similar to the way many people would get their mics modded to be even better than a regular 47.

The Soundelux mics get their capsules from MBHO, as far as I know- another high quality part.

To Musiclab-

Well... I am not sure what is meant by "getting capsules form telefunken". FYI, Telefunken never made any of the capsules in question on the originals- they just rebranded. Now, I think Telefunken USA at least stands a shot because of the investment they have put into their facility.... it still remains to be seen whether they have the "talent" to go with the investment.

All these companies are very different from a guy in sitting in his living room putting together parts he orders from Shanghai.
In my haste to type away I misspoke. Neumann made the u47, AKG made the
251. The bottom line is this NO ONE makes an exact copy of a U47.
You seem to continually say Peluso is using crap in his mic. Where do you get your info? Have you used them or do you have an agenda like Fletcher?

Like I've said before, I own a U87 I also own a U195, I also have used some of the cheap ADK and Studio Projects mics. When you A/B them with a U87 or a U195, its pretty obvious what the deal is there. When you A/B
the Peluso its pretty obvious that you have a real mic. It's big and fat and has a smooth top. I'm not saying its as good as the Lawson or the Soundelux E47
since I havent had them in my place, but I am saying it's as good as a U87 which is a quality mic. And like I've said before I'm not the only one. Steve Remote was at my place and he liked the Peluso also and thought it sounded at least as good as the U87. So if Peluso is using crap he's a genius, otherwise I would say he's probably using the right stuff.
Old 11th December 2004
  #64
Dot
Lives for gear
 
Dot's Avatar
<--------- [ somebody who's actually used Peluso mics ]

I have a pair of Peluso CEMC6's here with cardioid caps. Without making any direct comparisons at this point, I will say that there's nothing on the market in cardioid SDC's that will give you this kind of performance for $600 a pair. These are very good mics.

I've got a Lakland bass. I think Lakland is making better basses than Fender these days. I don't see anyone giving Dan Lakin **** for making basses that use older classic Fender basses as inspiration and benchmarks.
Old 11th December 2004
  #65
Lives for gear
 
Klaus's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by squizz
can any one tell me the name of a company selling mics that doesnt have some "u47" variation on there docket.
Brauner.
Old 12th December 2004
  #66
Lives for gear
 
DanV's Avatar
 

To my eyes there is a lot of misinformation, broad overgeneralisation, and suspiciously malicious targeting going on here with the Peluso conjecture.
I could pick apart this thread and try and shed some light but I'm sure I'd have a band of rabid haters on my ass in no time, instead I have invited John to come explain as much as he can as best he can to all yall suckahs heh.

Dearest fellow pimps, please don't bother trying to shoot me down with that bogus "oooh look at the pimp get his free advertising" BS, I have just as much if not more right to post here about this as I have at least heard the mics (regardless of any suspected agendas on my part or yours, blah blah blah). So please no trolling, it just makes us all look like idiots. I am just trying to to tell the fine contributors to this thread that the horses mouth is on it's way to the corral n sh*t. beyotch. Hopefully old man Peluso shows up soon!

Old 12th December 2004
  #67
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally posted by Klaus
Brauner.
Thank you Klaus.

Funny that Brauner has taken some criticism every now and then on the boards for NOT sounding just like a vintage mic.

Brad
Old 12th December 2004
  #68
Dot
Lives for gear
 
Dot's Avatar
[ this was a reply to a post George Toledo made in the space above this one. But he's a weenie - and deleted his post. ]

George, this thread is about Peluso mics. I've actually used some of their mics -- you haven't. And I don't think there's any claims by Peluso that these sound "exactly" like the mics that inspired them. What's your problem?

I'm proud of the AC cable thread. No apologies from me. It challenged people to go and actually investigate first hand. I ain't done with the AC cables yet. Still testing and listening. Many respectable people in the industry use aftermarket AC cables. Did you ever actually try any yourself? I gave you a direct contact right in Tampa.

HHB had its day. When the Radius 40 was released it represented a great value for price vs performance. A lot of people took my Radius 40 recommendation, and there were a lot of happy users. Jules - the head honcho here - was also someone who recommended the Radius 40 quite often. The newer version, the TL Audio 5051 Ivory 2, is an excellent mid-level hybrid tube channel strip.

I continue to recommend Studio Projects mics. Many of them are excellent. I was raving about their mics from the very beginning before anyone had heard of the company. Now they're one of most popular brands of budget mics with a lot of very happy end users. You wanna blame a little of that on me - I'll take it as a compliment.

I've also recommended Schoeps, Earthworks, Phoenix Audio, Great River, DACS, Speck, MXL V69 ME, Sebatron, DAC1, Extreme Isolation Headphones, Gefell, API, Vintech, AT, Red5 Audio, DPA, Oktava, Millennia, ADK, Royer, Avenson, Groove Tubes, THE, Focusrite, John Hardy, Martech, ELBERG - and a bunch of other gear that I have direct experience using.

I find it of no use in these forums to speculate about gear I've never used. You don't have a problem posting long and hard about equipment you've never used. That's OK, George. Please continue.......sorry to interrupt your witch hunt.
Old 12th December 2004
  #69
Lives for gear
 
toledo3's Avatar
 

"And I don't think there's any claims by Peluso that these sound "exactly" like the mics that inspired them."

That is incorrect.

Dot- look at the website- "captures the nuances".

It's not speculation, because what I am commenting on is the marketing. How is that speculation?

BTW, I deleted the post you responded to, long before you posted your response- about a half an hour before, b/c it was a knee jerk response; sorry.

I am simply calling into question what I perceive to be deceptive marketing. While other manufacturers go out of their way to let you know exactly what is going on with their "recreations", Peluso only goes out of their way to obsfucate the particulars. To me, that speaks volumes, but if it doesn't hit others that way that's well and fine. Lawson, Soundelux and Telefunken USA really go out of their way to say EXACTLY what is different with their microphones.

Others have questioned my motives- my only motive is for people not to get taken advantage of- and realize that they aren't getting some dead on version of a 47 or 251 that has been made with outsourced Chinese parts. They are in fact getting a tube mic that is no more similar to 251 or 47 than a Camaro is to a Corvette.

With that, I am done- There is no point in saying the same thing over and over again. I am truly amazed that people would respond "oh, you need to listen to the mics". That is not what I am talking about. If somebody is selling a pig in a poke, you hardly need to eat it before you know something is awry.
Old 12th December 2004
  #70
Lives for gear
 
toledo3's Avatar
 

Dot said-
"[ this was a reply to a post George Toledo made in the space about this one. But he's a weenie - and deleted his post. ]"

Dot, I deleted the post because I thought it was more heated in tone than necessary, and that it was not civil. I deleted it out of respect for the tone of the forums. In reality it was pretty tame by the standards of what is usually posted around here.

But I did not resort to name calling.

We have differences in opinion, and I will certainly agree to disagree.

"If I was an Oscar Meyer Weiner... oh wait, I am! "
Old 12th December 2004
  #71
Dot
Lives for gear
 
Dot's Avatar
George, don't candy coat it. You went for my jugular and you ended up on the ground.

You got PWN3D!
Old 12th December 2004
  #72
Lives for gear
 
toledo3's Avatar
 

"I continue to recommend Studio Projects mics. Many of them are excellent. "

So which ones are not excellent?

"I'm proud of the AC cable thread. No apologies from me. It challenged people to go and actually investigate first hand. I ain't done with the AC cables yet. Still testing and listening. Many respectable people in the industry use aftermarket AC cables. Did you ever actually try any yourself? I gave you a direct contact right in Tampa."

After talking about it with some of the people that I originally mentioned, it was decided that it was just too ridiculous of a thing to waste time on. Let us all know when you get that A/C Cable Listening Session done, I'm sure it will be enlightening.


"The newer version, the TL Audio 5051 Ivory 2 is an excellent mid-level hybrid tube channel strip."

That is a ringing endorsement if I have ever heard one. What exactly constitutes mid-level?

"You don't have a problem posting long and hard about equipment you've never used."

I am posting about the advertising, and web site copy.
Old 12th December 2004
  #73
Lives for gear
 
toledo3's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by Dot
George, don't candy coat it. You went for my jugular and you ended up on the ground.

You got PWN3D!
I'm not candy coating anything. That's just the way it is. I made some heated comments, and thought better of them. I didn't resort to name-calling or anything like that, because I don't have the desire or the time to engage in pissing contests.

If you want to keep it up, feel free, but after this post, I think that everything that needs to be said has been said.
Old 12th December 2004
  #74
Gear Addict
 
BrianK's Avatar
 

>>>So your saying everyone else is buying their capsule from telefunken? <<<

I think it's the other way around - where does Telefunken get their U47 capsule now?
Old 12th December 2004
  #75
Quote:
Originally posted by toledo3
"And I don't think there's any claims by Peluso that these sound "exactly" like the mics that inspired them."

That is incorrect.

Dot- look at the website- "captures the nuances".

It's not speculation, because what I am commenting on is the marketing. How is that speculation?

BTW, I deleted the post you responded to, long before you posted your response- about a half an hour before, b/c it was a knee jerk response; sorry.

I am simply calling into question what I perceive to be deceptive marketing. While other manufacturers go out of their way to let you know exactly what is going on with their "recreations", Peluso only goes out of their way to obsfucate the particulars. To me, that speaks volumes, but if it doesn't hit others that way that's well and fine. Lawson, Soundelux and Telefunken USA really go out of their way to say EXACTLY what is different with their microphones.

Others have questioned my motives- my only motive is for people not to get taken advantage of- and realize that they aren't getting some dead on version of a 47 or 251 that has been made with outsourced Chinese parts. They are in fact getting a tube mic that is no more similar to 251 or 47 than a Camaro is to a Corvette.

With that, I am done- There is no point in saying the same thing over and over again. I am truly amazed that people would respond "oh, you need to listen to the mics". That is not what I am talking about. If somebody is selling a pig in a poke, you hardly need to eat it before you know something is awry.
This is Peluso's description:
This microphone is styled after the legendary "Neumann U-47". It has the additional feature of 9 polar patterns, controlled from the power supply. It captures the low frequency nuances of the original "47" with smooth mids and balanced highs.
The microphone comes as a complete system, with Microphone, Power Supply, 7 Conductor Cable, and Shock Mount. Hand built in the USA.
MSRP $1150.00 USD
This is from the Lawson site:

The Lawson tradition of recreating the classic microphones of yesteryear started with the L47. Created in 1997, the L47MP has been our most popular model. Like the original L47MP, the L47MP MKII features the Lawson reproduction of the M7 capsule used in the legendary U47 and M49 microphone

Relive the Magic™ of the classic ELAM 251 with our airy, breathy, sparkly, and award-winning L251. more..
On the Trans America site:
The Soundelux E47 is modeled to the very best of the 1950's Tube47s, with newer cosmetics, lower noise floor, greater headroom, and the same fixed cardioid or variable pattern option of the original. This is the BIG sound for male vocals you been looking for. It has plenty of low frequency power and still retains the clarity in midrange and top, which very few vintage originals can match. It's the mic you use when the talent says "I want to sound like God".

Peluso says his mic is "styled" Lawson claims his is a "recreation", Soundelux is "modeled". You have yet to explain what's so crappy about the peluso.
I doubt you've heard one. It should be fairly obvious by now your argument
about peluso's decription is absurd. I'm not putting down Lawson or Soundelux their description is there to help you know something about a product. They make quality mics. I think so does John Peluso.
Old 12th December 2004
  #76
Gear Maniac
yea toledo i am with musiclab on this your stretching things to justify some hate you have for peluso. you keep saying the same thing but if you go to other manufactures website they are all using different words but all saying the EXACT SAME THING. So if you want to call peluso a deciever you must call them a deciever. your orginal argument was that peluso is using deceptive marketing to sell his mics to people who cant afford the real thing, but you defend soundelux, telefunken and lawson. if his prices are what you are hung up on lawsons are similarly priced. So if you want to say peluso is deceptive for selling U47 alikes for cheap, lawson is doing the same.

I dont get your logic, have you read the other manufacturers websites, how are they different? are they more informative? is that your beef? OR maybe you bought a soundelux, telefunken, or lawson and feel the need to protect your investment by shooting down competitors.

Your "capture the nuances" post is no different the soundelux's "relive the magic". NO WHERE ON HIS WEBSITE DOES PELUSO SAY HIS MICS ARE A DEAD ON RECREATION AND THAT THEY WILL SOUND EXACTLY THE SAME. He says they are STYLED AFTER and that they will capture the same type of nuances, just like the Great river or chandler pre is styled after a 1073 and has the same fat bottom or captures everything you love about the 1073.

your comment about people getting a mic made of outsourced chinese parts, guess what kind of capsules soundelux was using at one point in time. Just cause its chinese doesnt make it bad, the ONLY problem with chinese parts is the quality control and for all you know Peluso can quality control all the capsules himself prior to use. How can you critsize a design you have NEVER SEEN? How can you call it no closer to a u47 than a 251 when you have never seen the inside of the mic or the parts list? Fact of the matter you dont know what kind of capsule is in there you just know its chinese. After that you know nothing about the mic and i doubt you would actually take the time out too before shooting off your mouth.

You are arguing without FACTS. What else is in the mic Toledo? please tell me. What does his design look like for you to say its nothing like the orginal? whats different? what parts has he substituted that are all wrong?

there you go i argued my point and not once have i said listen to the mic, even though a listening testt in comparison to th other copies would be interesting and i bet pretty enlightning.
Old 19th September 2005
  #77
Gear Maniac
 

I actually use the Peluso 2247, which I find to be a very high-quality mic. I am just your average home recording enthusiast who really doesn't know very much about recording, and I am an average singer guitar player, not that great, but not too bad either.

Here is the signal chain:

Peluso 2247(Vocals) --> Avalon AD2022 Preamp --> E-MU 1212m soundcard --> Sonar 4

Here is my attempt at doing what I like to do using the Peluso 2247, so you all can judge for yourselves as to the quality of the sound. I really don't have much else to compare it to, so I don't really know.

Here it is: 22 47 Recording

I don't know if this is of any value to anyone.
Old 19th September 2005
  #78
Lives for gear
 
Jonathan Starr's Avatar
 

We've been getting great use out of the Pelusos, the 2247LE with the USA tube and the 251.

I don't care whether they are exactly the same as any particular vintage piece. The two are huge sounding mics with exceptional clarity and distinctly different flavors, and both very usable for a lot of purposes.

I had a few questions before I bought the 251 and I called Peluso and left a message. An hour later John Peluso called me back and he was very accomodating and friendly and helpful.

I felt happy to give his enterprise my business. I wish he made a non-tube mic that was voiced like an 87ai; I would buy one of his before a Neumann.
Old 20th September 2005
  #79
Lives for gear
 
swankdoc's Avatar
 

It sure is interesting to read a thread like this. Only 2 people tried to answer the question, yet there is lots of emotion and such. There is a lot to gain and lose in a business such as this. And its interesting how forums sort of shape the market environment and sort of self create an atmosphere which the dealers have to somehow embrace or overcome. A 'brand' is a very fragile and tenous notion.

The original post is very fair. And squizz and Musiclab give very fair replies. What would happen when someone comes out with a $300 LDC which states its modeled after the U47, but other than the add itself has nothing to do with the U47? Regardless of how it sounds, or its own merit, its really a question of advertising techniques. One has to wonder if a seller might be a bit better off to not worry about what they model it after and just let a mic stand on its own. Peluso may have created less negativity had he just said, "here's a great LDC." Or then again, he might have dried up and vanished in a month drowning in a sea of "here's another LDC".

I cant help but think its a price point issue. At $300 - $1000, you're pretty much stuck at saying: "heres a nice LDC". At $1k and above you can start to claim what you want about what its modeled after and if it performs, you get a pass. And if someone had the notion to make a $9k mic and said its "like a 251", but on careful inspection the design was pretty different, it probably wouldnt get called on its advertising strategy, but would be very much interrogated on its own sound and performance.

Regardless, its interesting to me. And its a tough business.
Old 20th September 2005
  #80
Gear Addict
 
retropete's Avatar
 

Actually, everyone seems to have focused on the marketing side of it. But I'm interested in the original question which has to do with technology -- ie, is it possible to get close to an original sound signature with different components?

Obviously, people have tried with guitar amplifiers with modeling. But can a different "recipe" of hardware components in a microphone recreate the type of sound associated with one of the classics?

Respectfully, I don't think anyone has really addressed that issue.
Old 20th September 2005
  #81
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Shepherd
I actually use the Peluso 2247, which I find to be a very high-quality mic. I am just your average home recording enthusiast who really doesn't know very much about recording, and I am an average singer guitar player, not that great, but not too bad either.

Here is the signal chain:

Peluso 2247(Vocals) --> Avalon AD2022 Preamp --> E-MU 1212m soundcard --> Sonar 4

Here is my attempt at doing what I like to do using the Peluso 2247, so you all can judge for yourselves as to the quality of the sound. I really don't have much else to compare it to, so I don't really know.

Here it is: 22 47 Recording

I don't know if this is of any value to anyone.
It's a nice and well recorded song. Not stylistically my cup of tea but well recorded.
Old 20th September 2005
  #82
I asked John to comes in and reply to this topic as well but he prefers to stay off of these public forums. I however, wanted to make a few points after speaking with him.

1. The capsules are not made in China, they are made in the USA. Only the metalwork is done in China in order to save huge costs (or would you all rather pay a lot more for the mics that would be exactly the same except for the fact that someone in the USA did the metalwork?). The capsules are diaphragmed at Mr. Peluso factory in Virginia.

2. Poutine made a statement regarding the signal chain on our website not being "good enough" to tell what was really going on with the Peluso mics. This took me completely by surprise because when I put a mic through a Neve & DBX 786 pre into a Prism ADA-8 converter at 24/96 and then out through a Dangerous 2-Bus into a DBX 160SL and onto a hi-res CD made by the Tascam CDRW2000, I have to say that I fail to see where the signal chain is at fault.

We did feel that the comparison files given to us by Mr. Peluso's friend were of subpar quality and they have since been removed.

3. Whether or not any of you appreciate the fact that John makes excellent mics for a fair price is neither here nor there. Whether or not any of you wish to compare them to the originals is neither here nor there. If you haven't heard them you cannot make comments that hold any water.

4. Peluso uses tubes that are similar to the original U47. Peluso does offer both the Telefunken EF-14 as well as the Red American tube in his 22 47LE. The EF-14 and the 5693 (which is the Red American Tube) is as close to the original VF-14 as anything currently available.

5. The 22 47LE uses the original design circuit of the long body Neumann U47 (some people pointed out as did the topic of this thread that they were not the same design). The 22 251 also utilizes the same design circuit as the original 251. These are both of course with the exception of the fact that Peluso offers 9 polar patterns instead of the original 251 which offered only 3 (and the 47 which had 2 originally).

6. The price points on Peluso's products are kept so low because his overhead is much lower than some of the other companies out there. Peluso owns all their own buildings, production equipment, etc.

I have spoken to John time and again about this whole pricing issue, and, the question was posed earlier in this thread as to why SoundElux gets such high praise and Peluso does not. The answer is that they've been around longer and charge a lot more for the mic. If Peluso came out and was charging $6000 for his 22 47LE I don't think too many people would be calling his stuff "cheap ****" (which, btw, it is not by any far stretch of the imagination). He doesn't want to do this. He wants to keep the prices reasonable and give everyone the opportunity to own a great mic at a fair price. In fact, he believes that instead of spending $4000 with SoundElux on one mic, you can purchase all of his mics and still have some money left over. This gives the studio engineer choices when it comes to recording the source. A great mic for a great price. I just don't see why that's such a bad thing in an industry of overpriced and often "overvalued" gear.
Old 20th September 2005
  #83
Quote:
Originally Posted by swankdoc
It sure is interesting to read a thread like this. Only 2 people tried to answer the question, yet there is lots of emotion and such. There is a lot to gain and lose in a business such as this. And its interesting how forums sort of shape the market environment and sort of self create an atmosphere which the dealers have to somehow embrace or overcome. A 'brand' is a very fragile and tenous notion.

The original post is very fair. And squizz and Musiclab give very fair replies. What would happen when someone comes out with a $300 LDC which states its modeled after the U47, but other than the add itself has nothing to do with the U47? Regardless of how it sounds, or its own merit, its really a question of advertising techniques. One has to wonder if a seller might be a bit better off to not worry about what they model it after and just let a mic stand on its own. Peluso may have created less negativity had he just said, "here's a great LDC." Or then again, he might have dried up and vanished in a month drowning in a sea of "here's another LDC".

I cant help but think its a price point issue. At $300 - $1000, you're pretty much stuck at saying: "heres a nice LDC". At $1k and above you can start to claim what you want about what its modeled after and if it performs, you get a pass. And if someone had the notion to make a $9k mic and said its "like a 251", but on careful inspection the design was pretty different, it probably wouldnt get called on its advertising strategy, but would be very much interrogated on its own sound and performance.

Regardless, its interesting to me. And its a tough business.
To be clear tho this is NOT a 300-1000 mic
Old 20th September 2005
  #84
Gear Maniac
 

Kittonian, Thanks for taking the time to contact Peluso and provid some educated responses to the former questions. I thought, in my previous post, that providing a recording using a high quality signal chain might help a bit, the AD2022 pre being a very transparent pre with very little to no coloration.

I think it is important for people to hear samples using alot of different signal chains so they can hear the differences. I find the 2247 to be very well-balanced tonally as well as full-bodied and smooth. With my signal chain, the result is incredibly intimate. My wife and coworkers say it sounds like I am sitting there singing to them.

Anyway, personally I don't care whether this mic sounds like anything else, past or present, because I have no frame of reference other than the AT4033 and the SP C1. I figure I at least got what I paid for, and who knows, maybe some day these mics will be highly regarded by most in the industry.
Old 20th September 2005
  #85
Lives for gear
 
GYang's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musiclab
The bottom line is this NO ONE makes an exact copy of a U47.
Wagner makes it.
True and exact U47 from used (recycled) or NOS parts, exactly as it was done by original manufacturer.
To my ears it was better than any original U47 I could find around (possible that no good original U47 was available at all).

The bottom line is that Wagner U47 although manufactured upon original standards and using same parts were not in any way more preferrable choice than Korby U47, which again is engineered and manufactured quite differently.
In that respect Korby U47 is quite an accomplishment IMO.

GYang
Old 20th September 2005
  #86
Gear Guru
 
lucey's Avatar
After participating in these sort of threads in the past I've come to think they're worthless. Ironically they often promote the mic being critiqued, even if the criticism is well founded, because the guy saying "mic XX sounds like crap" or "mic XX is not like mic X that it claims to copy" is always countered by the people who like mic XX for whatever reason (taste, price, relationship).

So the whole thing becomes a blurry subjectivity fest long before it can answer any questions as subtle as "which is the more 47-like reproduction?"


In the end ... the ability to hear, appreciate and pay for the nuances in mics is a chain related thing, so no one else can tell anyone else much of anything useful.


Old 21st September 2005
  #87
Lives for gear
 
kevinc's Avatar
 

Good god why`d you dig this thing up ???



Rick you should`ve just started up your own thread about how you like the Peluso. That way we all wouldn`t have to wade through all this cyber muck to get to your post.

At the very least it would start a fresh NEW argument instead of bringing back the tired old one. heh
Old 22nd September 2005
  #88
Gear Maniac
 

Thank-you Kevin, that was a nice compliment!
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
jebjerome / Post Production forum
89
celebritymusic / So Much Gear, So Little Time
3
T.RayBullard / So Much Gear, So Little Time
4

Forum Jump
Forum Jump