Quote Andy Simpson:

---

That is the purpose of the papers which explain the concepts & measurements.

That these concepts are hard to grasp is not my fault.

That the proposition of progress seems unpalatable to the majority of writers here is also not my fault.

If you do not understand from what I've written you may need to read it (all) again with consultation of the references & other publications around the subject.

---

Andy, this kind of condescending claptrap that, to a bunch of people who use mics for a living in often very demanding circumstances, is yet another reason why I would not touch your product with a ten foot pole.

I don't care about the maths. I care about how a mic sounds. And then about how easy it is to position, and get good results out of, in real world conditions, where clients are rightly concerned about the cost per minute of studio time.

The fact is there is no extant recording made with your mic which persuades me, either as a listener or as an engineer, that there is the slightest reason to pay what you're asking or anything like it. On basic listening tests of your own examples (on a £25k monitoring system in a treated control room), nothing sells this thing to me.

You said 18 months ago in this forum that "Regarding my samples, these are very basic 'worst case' recordings, made with entry level gear." Now why would you want to market your product like that?

You also said: "The microphone is designed to be post-equalised. This means that using a simple equalisation 'curve' the mic is brought to 'flat'."

You can dress that up however you like, but I just read as meaning the mic is not accurate. Any EQ can add phase problems. I've never before seen a mic sold as requiring me to factor in that consideration.

Then you said, regarding the curious disappearance of some samples of pop music from your site "I had the pop samples taken down because there is almost no interest in progress in this market which seems obsessed with a self-destructive love of compression & poor monitoring." OK, just feel free to patronise most of your target market. See if we care.

Andy, this stuff is pathetic! With respect, if you want ten grand of my money for a mic, you're going to have to try a lot harder than that. Maybe you're just in denial about the fact that you don't have a marketable product?


And the further fact is that I'm not aware that any reputable studio, producer or engineer is using your product or singing its praises.

Microphony is basically a mature technology, done and dusted half a century or more ago, with some caveats (irrelevant for present purposes) about surround sound and binaural etc. Where advances are happening at all, it's in people like Neumann giving us say the TLM49 for less than £1,000 because they (a) know very clearly what they are doing, and (b) understand that the market has moved away from even their own more exotic products.

I like the sound of say a Neumann U47 and it's oh-so-pathetic maths, or a hissy noisy KM84, and so do my clients.

Sorry about those inconvenient truths.

Here's a simple challenge: how many have you sold?

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...

A general +1 on everything that has been added to this thread recently.
We still have no numbers from you as to how many sold or for that matter any real world results.

I too have spent an inordinately large amount of time wading through your supporting paperwork and also remain unconvinced.
Your comments as to the difference between loudspeaker and microphone behaviour just do not hold water at all.
Your comments about the behaviour of air going INto your mic being irrelevant compared to air coming OUT of a speaker are, shall we say, wishful thinking IMO.
The idea that a horn can be designed to avoid ALL internal reflections and yet a loudspeaker cannot is also a fascinating one.
I do not express myself well when discussing technical concepts but I still find myself at a loss to follow your explanation of the difference here.
From my standpoint, there is none.

And once again we come down to the question I first asked in the very early stages of this thread & which remains unanswered.

HOW MANY have you sold?
Are any of the purchasers prepared to demonstrate an example of fine recordings made with you rmics?

Hell, I`ll even offer to BUY a recording from one of your customers, so long as the price falls within the normal price range for a CD.
(£10-15)

--------------------
Me? But I`m such a loveable old bugger!

Quote Steve Hill:

---

Microphony is basically a mature technology, done and dusted half a century or more ago

---

We've had this discussion before and it sstill peeves me.... With the utmost respect as always, your statement is inaccurate, the microphone is not a mature technology any more than the motor car is a 'mature technology.'

Microphones may look similar to those of the 1930s and 40s, and much of the technology might share similar names, but there have been and continue to be significant advances. Senheiser's symmetrical capsules have already been mentioned and are just one. Crowley and Trip's nano-carbon ribbon technology is another. AKG's development of large diaphragm electrets is another. DPA's development of the intereference tubes with omni capsules is another. Audiotechnica's multi-cpasule DSP-based directional mics are another. And there are plenty more advances in development.

There is still plenty of scope to improve the microphone. It's not just about cheap chinese clones allowing people to buy fifty year old technology for knock down prices.

However, whether or not this particular mic counts as a useful technology development remains to be seen. That those with the appropriate academic credentials and relevant experience struggle to understand and verify the claims and explanations made of this innovative approach still concerns me. And at that price, there will be few independent empirical opinions either.

Hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Why dont we club together and buy one? give it to hugh! I've got £20.we could open a paypal account and do coffee mornings.I'll bring the dark chocolate hob nobs.

--------------------
My head hurts!

Actually, Dave, i know a good phrenologist - you appear to be in the market for one of them as well....

But there again, I`d be prepared to chip in a partially-used packet of Choccy Hobnobs if it helps things along.

They may be a bit stale as they date back to BD. (before diabetes) twelve years ago.

Happy to help in the name of science, though....

--------------------
Me? But I`m such a loveable old bugger!

Sorry, but how many he's sold is something of an irrelevance .... it makes no odds at all with relation to the technical question of whether this mic is actually any good....


it's not like Brauner VMA's or VM1S's are selling in the thousands either..... I defy any of you to tell me they're not a good mic..... and at RRP , in terms of magnitude, they're not all that much cheaper either.... (VM1S = about £7K + VAT) (okay, so it's stereo... but still... ) .... and Dirk has some "odd" ideas about physics sometimes..... (not necessarily wrong, but perhaps "uniquely expressed" .... quantum mechanics for Mics gets him very "excited" . ) which make equally hard reading....


Hugh's point about technology movement is also very valid.. a mature technology is one where we have made all the major advances we're ever going to be able to make..... this is almost certainly not the case with Microphones....


I'm No Microphone designer.....

but i've a reasonable grounding in Physics and engineering.

my concerns involve a number of the technical claims... about acoustic impedance matching for starters.... I don't believe the loading works quite the way it appears to be claimed. which is why showing your working, the maths.... is important....

then in the micro-acoustic environment of the horn, the path length differentials for any incident sound not directly perpendicular to the horn position and alignment.... and it's effect on the polar pattern across the spectrum, and obviously the off axis response.

the question of body resonance , the wooden horn 's behaviour in that respect and possible transmission through to the capsule itself...

BUT What's really bothering me I suppose, is that none of the recordings I've so far heard match up to what's possible with even moderate level recording and monitoring equipment and an averagely good set of mics.... never mind really good high end ones....

making me rather un-inclined to investigate a great deal further. (eg, I'm unlikely to sell the kids to fund a pair)

and I ask, even assuming the intermodulation distortion claims to be completely valid, given the utterly skewed response graph , and requirement to add EQ afterwards (with it's own distortions of phase and so on) what's the point???

Quote turbodave:

---

Why dont we club together and buy one? give it to hugh! I've got £20.we could open a paypal account and do coffee mornings.I'll bring the dark chocolate hob nobs.

---

i suspect that's not actually as daft and undoable as it sounds....

Don`t know about everyone else but I asked how many he had sold and whether or not there was a possibility of getting some non-Andy recordings to audition so I could gauge the end result more effectively.

The science is one thing, but the net result in terms of VFM is just as relevant, surely?
To be honest, if someone told me they had a microphone that relied on being filled with phlogiston to achieve it`s effects, I`d be quite happy to plnk down my dosh IF it came up with the goods.

At present we have a lot of paperwork and promises, allied with some average recordings.
And a massive retail price.

I am quite happy to leave debating the technicalities to you idris - I respect the opinions and experience of both you and Hugh & freely acknowledge your techie credentials are vastly better than mine.

So by all means debate the science but let us not forget what the majority of us are really here for.
Results in the real world.

And I have to agree with idris - what`s the point, if you have to hack around the recorded signal to get it sounding right?

--------------------
Me? But I`m such a loveable old bugger!

Quote IvanSC:

---

Actually, Dave, i know a good phrenologist - you appear to be in the market for one of them as well....

But there again, I`d be prepared to chip in a partially-used packet of Choccy Hobnobs if it helps things along.

They may be a bit stale as they date back to BD. (before diabetes) twelve years ago.

Happy to help in the name of science, though....

---

thanks for using words I dont know..I had to look it up, but yes you may be correct, i need a phrenologist... having read most of your recent posts!

--------------------
My head hurts!

Quote turbodave:

---

Quote IvanSC:

---

Actually, Dave, i know a good phrenologist - you appear to be in the market for one of them as well....

But there again, I`d be prepared to chip in a partially-used packet of Choccy Hobnobs if it helps things along.

They may be a bit stale as they date back to BD. (before diabetes) twelve years ago.

Happy to help in the name of science, though....

---

thanks for using words I dont know..I had to look it up, but yes you may be correct, i need a phrenologist... having read most of your recent posts!

---

Cheeky bugger!

So about these hobnobs - will they count as my contribution towards this collective purchase and can I bag the first two weeks in August as my timeshare for the mic?

--------------------
Me? But I`m such a loveable old bugger!

Quote idris y draig:

---

BUT What's really bothering me I suppose, is that none of the recordings I've so far heard match up to what's possible with even moderate level recording and monitoring equipment and an averagely good set of mics.... never mind really good high end ones....

---

That's my point. I'm not saying the maths is irrelevant in purist abstract terms. I'm saying it's irrelevant to me, as compared with quality of product.

These things have been around 18 months or so now. I've seen no reviews or endorsements from anybody with any industry credibility (and I've looked). In that context asking about sales volumes is pertinent.

I'd also add that in a global depression I'd want to be very confident about the long term survival of a company before I blew $30,000 on a pair, lest they ever need servicing. I know I can get Neumann to fix a 50 year old mic.

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...

Waiting to see what Andy hsa to say.

I mentioned this product to my wife, who as some of you will know is heavily involved in sorting out & launching new products (usually in the software arena) and she was totally disbelieving of the whole thing.

Said something like `He is joking - does he even know if his target market has £17k to spend, or for that matter does he HAVE a target market`

Think she might have hit the nail on the head there.
Particularly in the light of his reticence to quote sales.

--------------------
Me? But I`m such a loveable old bugger!

Isnt it amazing that a product weve not seen, that has not been reviewed,that noone has bought(methinks)...has caused so much conversation and consternation?
I myself have developed the .5 channel compressor...the theory is that you send the whole channel back on itself, invert it if you will and remove the whole signal..by removing the whole signal what you are left with is my new track called the emperors new clothes.You can download this track from myspace for a nominal fee of £6500.

--------------------
My head hurts!

To underline some of the points made by Steve, Ivan etc etc..

Some years ago I worked for a startup company that had developed a product that was genuinely streets ahead of the competition.

Except that it wasn't. Technically very impressive, it did what the competition (in a mature market) did, but measurably 10 times better.

But the market didn't need anything that was 10 times better. Especially since:

(a) the product was 5 time more expensive than the competition
(b) there were question marks over company longevity and ability to support the product
(c) no-one could quantify the benefits of the product over the competition. So what if it's faster/bigger/redder etc etc, why did anyone need it?

If you can't establish the market need, then the technical specs are meaningless, and the product becomes a laboratory curiosity.

Reading the thread is kind of deja vu (vu .. vu.. vu..)

PS The company in question sold a few, consumed vast quantities of venture capital in continued R&D, and was then bought out for pence when it ran out of money.

--------------------
getting better all the time..

Quote idris y draig:

---

Hugh's point about technology movement is also very valid.. a mature technology is one where we have made all the major advances we're ever going to be able to make..... this is almost certainly not the case with Microphones....

---

Hi,

Yes, Hugh is absolutely right about that (though the industry may not be pleased to hear him say so).

Much of what we currently hold as 'subjective' will eventually be reduced to objective, but the necessary scrutiny is not yet there.

Quote:

---

my concerns involve a number of the technical claims... about acoustic impedance matching for starters.... I don't believe the loading works quite the way it appears to be claimed. which is why showing your working, the maths.... is important....

---

This is where the question I posed earlier comes in. Where or how else does a measured reduction in nonlinear distortion occur in combination with an increase in SPL at the capsule?

If we use a parabolic reflector (or increased proximity) to make the same acoustic gain, we will see an equal rise in nonlinear distortion.

The fundamental difference here is key and it is the measurements that offer the greatest clue.

Quote:

---

then in the micro-acoustic environment of the horn, the path length differentials for any incident sound not directly perpendicular to the horn position and alignment.... and it's effect on the polar pattern across the spectrum, and obviously the off axis response.

---

Good solid questions. However, I was trying to address 'why do the internal reflection issues of the horn speaker not apply here' questions.

Your questions actually touch on what I would call proprietary design concepts. If we get into that I will be writing a step by step guide to designing the microphone, which I would prefer to avoid, with respect.

Quote:

---

the question of body resonance , the wooden horn 's behaviour in that respect and possible transmission through to the capsule itself...

---

Perhaps the scale of the design is not clear from the photos?

We can expect very little resonance issue from such thickness of dense/dead wood, so the problem of mechanical transmission of resonance is more or less zero.

In any case, we can ask the same question of any microphone - good question though it is - so I don't think this is a fundamental issue.

It would not be hard to further damp the structure & make comparative measurements in order to prove the point, but this is not really necessary in my view.

Quote:

---

BUT What's really bothering me I suppose, is that none of the recordings I've so far heard match up to what's possible with even moderate level recording and monitoring equipment and an averagely good set of mics.... never mind really good high end ones....

...and I ask, even assuming the intermodulation distortion claims to be completely valid, given the utterly skewed response graph , and requirement to add EQ afterwards (with it's own distortions of phase and so on) what's the point???

---

Don't forget that the popular MKH microphones (to which I constantly refer) are designed with a similar (though less significantly applied) concept.

The MKH mics are essentially undamped, non-flat frequency response, and are EQ'd flat with internal circuitry - which is quite widely known as far as I know.

You can check the Sennheiser papers with regards to the actual significance of the subject of potential phase distortion and also look at the phase graphs shown.


To the question of audibility-

If you do not hear anything unusual in my samples, you are not alone and I would bet money that your ears have every bit the acuity of mine or better.

I could ask 'do you hear a difference in the case of the MKH'?

However, if you do want to hear the direct fundamental differences, I would suggest the decca-tree comparison on my site: Decca tree Model A / U89 comparison

These files can be A/B'd directly.

These are not my recordings, so if anybody would like to comment I would ask that comments be kept civil & constructive

If you listen on speakers with low nonlinear distortion at music levels (eg. K&H 0500c I would recommend), I would expect you to hear fundamental improvements.

Conversely, if you listen on speakers with high nonlinear distortion at music levels, I would expect the chances of audibility to be reduced.

-

Or, if anybody would be interested, I would be happy to participate in some direct comparison trials with a live orchestra.

This is by far the best perspective from which to hear the significance of fundamental linearity in microphones.

Andy

--------------------
www.simpsonmicrophones.com

And once again all real world issues are neatly sidestepped.
PLus yet another lot of mp3 files.
I haven`t even bothered D/Ling them this time.

I and I suspect 99% of your projected market couldn`t give a rat`s about the underlying science, Andy.

The discussion of distortion etc is all well and good, but
it isn`t going to sell you any microphones.
What we are interested in is `does this do the job of facilitating quality recordings significantly better than any other mics out there`
And if the answer is `Yes`, we then have to examine the cost of acquisition of this technology and decide if the entry price is worth it or not.
All else is marginally interesting sideshow stuff..

My last contribution to this now, in my opinion, totally worthless thread.

--------------------
Me? But I`m such a loveable old bugger!

Ivan... you're heading in to witch hunt territory .....


and indeed, while some appear "on principle" to object to a Mic costing that much.... I have no problem with the idea... IF the Mic performs accordingly....

I don;t think it's a sustainable business plan mind you.... especially in the current situation vis a vis the global economy... , and I sure as hell aint buying one, never mind a pair.... but I have no problem with the idea....

the numbers sold are irrelevant....

but the technical debate, is actually what defines the question of whether this mic is capable of the performance to justify the price... (irrespective of the business plan viability)

so no, this discussion of distortion, is not merely "all well and good" , or indeed a sideshow....

the technical questions ARE the "main event" Ivan....


In the same way as what gave serious Meat to the "Arby" type threads of days gone by.... in addition to the business plan discussionm, at the core of the pointed questions made to the Xytar CEO , were solid technical issues with the claims being made.... (albiet about rebadged behringer , rather than a uniquely manufactured "high end" product)

you can't have a really good argument about the value of a thing, without a solid core of technical investigation of it's "merits" or lack thereof...

and it's possible, that a small number of people might actually buy these mics because of the distortion behaviour.. assuming all other parameters to be up there with the best of them....

note, I said possible.... not likely.....

oh, and Mr Simpson... for gods sakes host some 24 bit uncompressed files will you.... the MP3 encoding process itself is probably adding more artefacts than the difference between the mics... even at higher bit rates.

(44.1K will do fine though)

Quote idris y draig:

---

the technical questions ARE the "main event" Ivan....

---

Is that why that lame no-brainer failure Bono always tracks with a £70 SM57? Or maybe he (and 150 million album buyers) think the sound suits him?

How many end users are going to listen on Andy's ideal monitoring system which (he claims) coincidentally does not reveal any flaws in his mic? What's wrong with mics that sound "right" when the end result is played on somebody's iPod while they are out jogging?

Why does he not answer my questions about the "need" to always EQ this mic, or why his samples are in his own words sub-standard and done on cheap systems? What guarantees can he offer for long term customer support to justify the price of these things (and in that context a proven sales record most certainly matters)? Why exactly (as he now claims) do his own website's pictures apparently not do justice to these mics? It's his website.

Why not lend a mic to a serious studio, to do some serious projects, in the hope of a worthwhile independent endorsement? Or has he already done this and found no endorsement forthcoming?

I don't think Ivan's engaged in a witchhunt. He's asking fair questions, as am I , and the hard ones are being sidestepped/ignored, while more and more BS spews forth.

FWIW I run one of the few studios that could spend $30,000 on a pair if I felt like it. But since I'm met with hostility, evasion or simply being ignored on the questions that matter, sod it. Andy's had a chance to answer sensible concerns without spouting "just look at the maths", and opts not to do so. I've recorded a 40 piece string section today. If this product could help me do the same only better, I'm interested (regardless of price). I can spend money elsewhere, however, and I will.

We're in Russ Andrews territory, and I think most of us know that.

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...

I think you slightly misconstrue my point with regards the main event, The argument being that the technical "theoretical" arguments are relevant and valid whether the Mic costs £100 , £1000, or £10000. is hand made in europe , or mass produced in China.... and are the heart of whether the mic is in fact capable of being "That good"

also, I think his comment about pictures was actually talking about scale.... it's difficult to get a sense of the actual physical dimensions of the assembly from a disembodied image.... with no obvious reference point from which to judge the size....

you'll also note I've actually queried the EQ situation as well.... although he's right in his point about many other mics using EQ to compensate for physical design requirements leaving a less than desirable spectral offset.


my "concerns" are totally independent of cost....


Andrew... my point , about the EQ being an issue, is that my current understanding is that it is to be added by the operator.... and as a result, could be almost anything.... whether or not appropriate.... rather than being a very specifically , carefully designed and crafted, high quality, part of the mic itself..


My question regarding the Horn's own physical reaction to stimuli is not, as you state, also equally addressable to every other mic.... the vast majority of other mics , don;t have the (relatively, to the capsule) large structure stuck on the front of them... (ignoring certain specialist applications, like shotgun Mics for example.... ) Mic's we'd generally use for recording in a "high quality" chain, are generally surrounded either by a relatively large, but permeable cage, to act as some protection from impact and plosives, and/or a fairly small acoustic structure to determine pressure wave path behaviour... usually made out of something less inherently capable of resonance , both structurally, and as a general trend of the material.

a front mounted horn of wood on the other hand... is basically a bell.

a structural form long chosen for specific duties.... like resonating nicely for example....

and the timber is not really a truly effective self damping material either. witness it's use in all sorts of instruments..... (actually it's possible that high quality Ply would be a better material to choose in this respect , the lamination of the material makes it inherently less resonant than solid timber... )


any powerful transient intersecting with that horn... is going to impart energy in to the horn... with potentially "interesting" results.

with regards to the comment about not wishing to get too much in to the mic design theory..... patent it, then publish.... unless people understand what it is you're doing to some extent, they simply won;t accept your word for it as being the end of the matter..... or the ultimate arbiter of where they spend their money...... as evidenced by Steve , Ivan, and co....

Quote Steve Hill:

---

Why does he not answer my questions about the "need" to always EQ this mic, or why his samples are in his own words sub-standard and done on cheap systems?

---

So the DAV BG1 preamplifier and the Mytek converters are cheap systems? I recently bought similar preamplifiers (with onboard A/D conversion) in order to improve my Fireface 400 setup and I guess I was completely wrong then...

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/remote-possibilities-acoustic-music-locatio n-recording/198612-4006-vs-model-orchestra-samples.html

(Sorry I am actually not interested in such expensive mics and only saw this by inadvertance)

Quote Steve Hill:

---

How many end users are going to listen on Andy's ideal monitoring system which (he claims) coincidentally does not reveal any flaws in his mic? What's wrong with mics that sound "right" when the end result is played on somebody's iPod while they are out jogging?

---

Nothing... except that the inevitable result is a downward spiral to utter mediocrity. The same logic would question why you have invested in the quality monitoring and acoustics of your studio, when a back bedroom and some cheap speakers would do just as well for most people.

The reason, as always, is because professionals aspire to obtain the best possible quality at source. That's why we invest in high quality mics, accurate monitoring and properly sorted controol room acoustics.

And Andy is almost certainly correct in that only the best high-end monitoring systems will be accurate enough in terms of non-linear distortion to reveal the difference between a very low distortion mic (such as his claim) and something with much higher inherent distortion. I have myself been involved in demos years back when the MKH range was launched, where the differences were completely inaudible on some (popular but relatively poor) monitors, yet chalk and cheese obvious on other, significantly cleaner models.

Quote:

---

Why does he not answer my questions about the "need" to always EQ this mic

---

It is largely an irrelevance. Although I share Idris' concerns about users applying any old EQ that takes their fancy, they do this anyway. Plcae accurate flat mic in front of source, tweak EQ to find a sound they 'like'.

The appropriate EQ could easily be built in to the mic -- as it is in many other designs -- if that's what the market desired. I'm assuming this hasn't been done becuase it is still early days for the production of this mic. Are there any more in existence than a couple of prototypes?

Quote:

---

why his samples are in his own words sub-standard and done on cheap systems?

---

Good question. That does appear to leave a large hole in the foot....

Quote:

---

What guarantees can he offer for long term customer support to justify the price of these things

---

None. Who could offer any long term guarantees, especially in the current financial malaise? You of all people should know that past history is no guarantee of future viability. But presumably, third party mic specialists would be able to service the mics just as they can for other brands.

Quote:

---

Why not lend a mic to a serious studio, to do some serious projects, in the hope of a worthwhile independent endorsement? Or has he already done this and found no endorsement forthcoming?

---

No one would rely on an unproven mic for a real fee-paying project, which means double the work to rig known reliable mics in addition and mix both versions. What's in it for the studio?

Quote:

---

...the hard ones are being sidestepped/ignored,

---

Yes, I think I share that view.

Quote:

---

We're in Russ Andrews territory, and I think most of us know that.

---

Harsh...

Hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

Quote:

---

We're in Russ Andrews territory, and I think most of us know that.

---

Harsh...

---

But fair

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

No one would rely on an unproven mic for a real fee-paying project, which means double the work to rig known reliable mics in addition and mix both versions. What's in it for the studio?

---

Actually, I've got a couple of classical CD projects coming up over the next month or so which are simple two or three mic rigs. I can field, say six channels of Crookwood, Grace, or Millennia preamps (or others but one of those should satisfy the 'clean/transparent' camp), and six channels of either Prism or dCS converters. At least then, I'll know what they're about and whether they have a place outside the Russ Andrews catalogue (OK, I'm doubtful but, in the absence of detailed explanations of the theories and engineering, a tryout seems like an idea if it doesn't get in the way of the day job.)

On both sessions, the halls are known quantities, with acoustics appropriate for the performers and programme, the artistes of a reasonably high calibre and the sessions usually pretty relaxed so I wouldn't mind giving the horn mics a whirl if they were available. One of the sessions has the advantge of being part of a series done with a fairly constant balance so there's a good selection of existing recordings if extra comparisons are desired on the same people doing similar music, in the same venue, with similar micing. That particular session is one where I often try out parallel rigs - especially mics - when testing gear so it'd be easy enough to try some of Mr Simpson's creations. If he doesn't want to stick them in the post and it'll encourage him to visit and explain them properly, I could run to a lunch and all the tea/coffee he can drink. Who knows, if the mics are as good as he claims I might even buy them - but then lunch is on him!

OVU - I consider that a very fairly flung gauntlet!

As regards the DAV/Mytek etc "inadequacies", I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this stuff any more than I'm saying there's anything wrong with a cheap old Neumann U87.

I have merely linked to a post by Andy Simpson on another forum where he attributed the poor quality of the examples on his website to using this cheap stuff (rather than, say, his mics).

Personally I swear by the DAV BG1 and it's a rare session where I don't use it for something or other. I have recommended it to many people here over the years as being comparable to pre-amps costing three or four times as much.

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...

Quote Steve Hill:

---

Personally I swear by the DAV BG1 and it's a rare session where I don't use it for something or other. I have recommended it to many people here over the years as being comparable to pre-amps costing three or four times as much.

---

Now if only DAV did their pre-amps in shiny wooden cases.

Mr Simpson I really think you should be jumping at the chance to give OVU a trial here.

if 0VU can't get a half decent recording out of these things, then no-one can.


I really would advise Mr Simpson to take him up on it..... you simply won;t get a better offer , ever.....

Quote idris y draig:

---

if 0VU can't get a half decent recording out of these things, then no-one can.


I really would advise Mr Simpson to take him up on it..... you simply won;t get a better offer , ever.....

---

+1

Quote Aural Reject:

---

Quote idris y draig:

---

if 0VU can't get a half decent recording out of these things, then no-one can.


I really would advise Mr Simpson to take him up on it..... you simply won;t get a better offer , ever.....

---

+1

---

+100! Put your money ( ) where your mouth is!

--------------------
http://www.loverslanestudios.co.uk

Quote Steve Hill:

---

As regards the DAV/Mytek etc "inadequacies", I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this stuff any more than I'm saying there's anything wrong with a cheap old Neumann U87.

---

Steve, the quote regarding 'worst case gear' is taken out of context.

My early/first samples were made with an m-audio delta1010 & tlaudio ivory 4001 mic-amps - as were the clips in the 4006 comparison thread mentioned above. This I would describe as 'worst case' consumer level.

I have never described either Mytek or DAV as worst-case or low-end!

They are both very good pieces of professional gear and I use them both daily!

Quote:

---

Personally I swear by the DAV BG1 and it's a rare session where I don't use it for something or other.

---

If you look hard enough at my posts on GS, you will find that I have given the exact same recommendation of the BG1.

I sincerely hope that I have not been seen to in any way put down these excellent pieces of gear.

I make no such 'worst-case' claims of my current samples, which represent the event they recorded to my satisfaction, given suitably low distortion monitoring.

Andy

--------------------
www.simpsonmicrophones.com

Quote 0VU:

---

Actually, I've got a couple of classical CD projects coming up over the next month or so which are simple two or three mic rigs. I can field, say six channels of Crookwood, Grace, or Millennia preamps (or others but one of those should satisfy the 'clean/transparent' camp), and six channels of either Prism or dCS converters. At least then, I'll know what they're about and whether they have a place outside the Russ Andrews catalogue (OK, I'm doubtful but, in the absence of detailed explanations of the theories and engineering, a tryout seems like an idea if it doesn't get in the way of the day job.)

On both sessions, the halls are known quantities, with acoustics appropriate for the performers and programme, the artistes of a reasonably high calibre and the sessions usually pretty relaxed so I wouldn't mind giving the horn mics a whirl if they were available. One of the sessions has the advantge of being part of a series done with a fairly constant balance so there's a good selection of existing recordings if extra comparisons are desired on the same people doing similar music, in the same venue, with similar micing. That particular session is one where I often try out parallel rigs - especially mics - when testing gear so it'd be easy enough to try some of Mr Simpson's creations. If he doesn't want to stick them in the post and it'll encourage him to visit and explain them properly, I could run to a lunch and all the tea/coffee he can drink. Who knows, if the mics are as good as he claims I might even buy them - but then lunch is on him!

---

Hi 0VU, that is a very kind offer and I will take you up on it directly, in person.

Please email/call and we can make the arrangements.

Andy

--------------------
www.simpsonmicrophones.com

Glad to hear you intend to take 0VU up on his offer..... i look forward to hearing the results...


I'd add that there are in fact WAV files available of some material recorded with these mics.... (16 bit 44.1K) .. I found them while trawling other forums this morning.... I'll not post the links in case there's a specific reason Andy has not done so..... (bandwidth limits or something.... ) .

I have NOT yet listened to them.... as I'm away from the studio and any decent monitoring ... and I intend to give them the best chance of being heard "properly" .

Quote Andy Simpson:

---

Quote 0VU:

---

Actually, I've got a couple of classical CD projects coming up over the next month or so which are simple two or three mic rigs. I can field, say six channels of Crookwood, Grace, or Millennia preamps (or others but one of those should satisfy the 'clean/transparent' camp), and six channels of either Prism or dCS converters. At least then, I'll know what they're about and whether they have a place outside the Russ Andrews catalogue (OK, I'm doubtful but, in the absence of detailed explanations of the theories and engineering, a tryout seems like an idea if it doesn't get in the way of the day job.)

On both sessions, the halls are known quantities, with acoustics appropriate for the performers and programme, the artistes of a reasonably high calibre and the sessions usually pretty relaxed so I wouldn't mind giving the horn mics a whirl if they were available. One of the sessions has the advantge of being part of a series done with a fairly constant balance so there's a good selection of existing recordings if extra comparisons are desired on the same people doing similar music, in the same venue, with similar micing. That particular session is one where I often try out parallel rigs - especially mics - when testing gear so it'd be easy enough to try some of Mr Simpson's creations. If he doesn't want to stick them in the post and it'll encourage him to visit and explain them properly, I could run to a lunch and all the tea/coffee he can drink. Who knows, if the mics are as good as he claims I might even buy them - but then lunch is on him!

---

Hi 0VU, that is a very kind offer and I will take you up on it directly, in person.

Please email/call and we can make the arrangements.

Andy

---

Hallelujah

--------------------
http://www.loverslanestudios.co.uk

Quote Andy Simpson:

---

Hi 0VU, that is a very kind offer and I will take you up on it directly, in person.

Please email/call and we can make the arrangements.

Andy

---

you can also send him a PM directly.... click on his user name to be taken to a screen with that option

A fly fully formed, dissect it to find out how it works, & we're left with not a fully formed functioning fly, but just dissected science.


i.e in this instance, the sum of all the science must amount to a beautiful sounding mic, else its just dissected science.

I'd love to hear what the session sounds like, this whole thread intrigues me, even though, i'm a bedroom music making pleb that will never buy the mic, nor work with muso's good enough to do justice if the claims are correct.

Never the less I'd still read a car mag about a Bugatti Veyron, even though its unlilely I would ever own one...

just nodding my interest. Some number work for me would be nice....

so now you're a Masomatician ?

Quote jaminem:

---

Never the less I'd still read a car mag about a Bugatti Veyron, even though its unlilely I would ever own one...

---

Baggsey I get to be Clarkson, 0Vu is James may in disguise, and Hugh, for all sorts of reasons, gets to be Mr Hammond....




--------------------
if you don't know who i am, i aint gonna tell you.