At 1:30 PM -0400 7/21/05, Walter Knapp wrote:
>From: Rob Danielson <>
>
>> I'm not against people investing in MKH at all. I'm for people being
>> aware of other options. Rob D.
>
>I'm for people being aware of all options. Last year a beginner would
>have been told that the best mic was the Shure 183, other options, and
>it's shortcomings were hardly mentioned.
I count four test movies in which the 183 was compared with several
other popular PIP and phantom mics including mkh's. I listened to
Dan's French Gulch recording and said to myself, "Hey! that sounds
pretty good! What are these mics about?" So I say its Dan's fault.
> Right now it's a couple Rode
>mics that are the darlings. That the premier nature recording mic series
>don't get mentioned or discussed (except by me after I give up on anyone
>else providing balance) is also wrong. There have been far more quality
>nature recordings made on Sennheiser MKH and ME series mics than any
>other. There are very good reasons for this, and they should be
>discussed more. What I see now is folks only talking about how much one
>costs.
>
>I'm tired of being the only person to bring these mics up in the context
>of choices for those looking for new mics. I've just about given up
>helping beginners in the group because of the level of hassles if I try
>to provide balance to the info. If this group is dead set on only
>discussing CHEAP options and not discussing the negatives of the same so
>be it! Cheap is not a virtue when it's a compromise.
I agree that its quality, not just money. And its interesting to me
that we're able to get pretty far into exploring the personal values
and observations behind what "quality" is to each of us.
The tests present a range of options side by side, without commentary
or pricing, but they also just one of many ways to further explore
values, observations etc. One of the values that is important to
some is "doing it themselves" creating a personal relation to the act
of sound recording and developing an intense relation to the natural
world. Recording is only about 60 years old and digital recording,
just over a decade. No way the "practice" is going to get "locked
in" at this stage.
Knowledgeable, experienced people (and those who are neither too)
are going to speak-up and disagree with any idea, aspect, concept
that they feel someone else is trying to shove off as general rule or
accepted reality when they feel its not. Instability and frustration
is a part of democratic discussion. So are personal and larger
contexts of growth, ideally. I learn a ton from you and many other
people on this list. When its all said and done, everyone makes very,
very different choices-- and not what anyone suggested. It has to be
that way because everyone sees and hears differently and desires
different outcomes. I talk about tech, because its an access point to
desire. Which I disagree, I learn a lot, even while steaming in my
own juices. I can live with that. If I get out of line, please shoot
for my kneecaps.
I'm wired to give advice (though I should probably check that impulse
more). You're wired to give advice, but I don't, speaking truly, want
you to check your impulses in any way. We can live with this. Rob D.
>Walt
>
>
>
>
>"Microphones are not ears,
>Loudspeakers are not birds,
>A listening room is not nature."
>Klas Strandberg
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Rob Danielson
Film Department
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|