Downloadable - Sonic Studios

Sonic Studios 

OTHER MICS VERSES DSM FAQ Page 

Binaural vs. DSM Mic Method 

In a message dated 1/15/05 8:59:32 AM Pacific Standard Time, a@acobb.com writes: 

Hi Leonard, 

I thought you'd like to know my site has a link 

http://www.timbreproductions.com/pages/mental_psychoacoustics.html 

to your site in my initial intro to binaural recording. I'll have more binaural material in the next 

few months (there are a few synthetic tracks already, but no acoustic recordings yet). 

Please let me know if you want me to refine or adjust anything, especially the few words I've said 

about you and your mic placement technique. 

Allen 

Allen Cobb 

a@acobb.com 

www.timbreproductions.com 

Hello Allen, 

Appreciate the link to my site and the opportunity to help bringing better appreciation for this 

form of recording. 

While the DSM mic/method is often referred to as 'quasi-binaural,' I suggest we rethink this use 

of the term for better understanding of why Binaural HRTF method is not more available as 

sound/music commercial recordings. 

My primary concern is with using the term Binaural to describe all the types of psychoacoustic 

HRTF related methods, including my patented DSM mic/method. This is exactly like always 

describing all automobiles without some discriminating reference. Without additional 

This page as Adobe Acrobat Reader DOWNLOAD

description and knowledge, a Volkswagen Beetle is the same as a Hummer, is the same as a 

Lexus sedan 'automobile.' 

The term 'automobile' is just like using the term 'Binaural' as a description that's supposed to 

convey what it is, and for what purposes something is good for. If this were the case, someone 

who really should specify a HUMMER for rugged off-road travel requirement, may instead end 

up with something else called an automobile. While correctly named an automobile, a Lexus 

sedan or Beetle 'automobile' is totally unsuitable for a needed purpose. Someone may have really 

needed a HUMMER, but got any automobile because this the only 'accepted' descriptive term for 

all 4 wheel drive off-road vehicles. Kinda dumb, but this is a good analogy nonetheless. 

In this same way, Binaural or Dummy Head is a most non-descriptive term as applied to all 

HRTF, psychoacoustic, and patented DSM recording technology. 

Yes, 'Binaural' is a HRTF, psychoacoustic recording method, but a subset or particular type of the 

general form. DSM method is also a HRTF, psychoacoustic recording method, but is NOT 

binaural in method as the term is understood, and playback ability as the 'binaural' term is now 

regarded to mean in-ear worn, or in-ear dummy head microphones where it counts the most. 

What is happening by using the 'Binaural' term for all HRTF or psychoacoustic methods? 

Does the term Binaural really describe what you need to know to understand what it is, its past, 

present, and application for today's playback systems? 

In the '50s, 1-channel monaural expanded to 2-channel 'binaural' recordings and systems. Then 

some years later, someone coined the word stereophonic, soon shortened to 'Stereo' and the 

'Binaural' term fell to disuse, and was mostly forgotten until person-worn in-the-ears, and 

synthetic-ear-dummy head recording was termed as 'Binaural' recording. This term for headmic's 

recording has survived to this day. Yes, Binaural is (a type of) stereo, but a very special kind 

of stereo to say the least. 

In today's professional audio world, Binaural is a mostly 'dirty word' as now recognized as a deadend 

'hobby grade' technology, NOT suitable for prime-time recording method. Reason is mostly 

'binaural's' very limited, non-universal playback ability for general media products. 

Many years ago some creative media professionals tried 'in-ear Binaural' for commercial projects 

and were mostly embarrassed, even chastised when only a short few seconds were tolerable as 

interesting on anything, but headphones. Even so, for a small percentage of listeners with 

radically different 'ear-shape' signature, even headphones listening was intolerable. 

'Binaural mix to mono was 'discovered' to be generally awful, vinyl Binaural records were nearly 

impossible to cut for having too much the 'phase' information for the 'cutter (and playback 

stylus)' to mechanically follow, so professional (broadcast radio) usage was solely limited to (tape 

recorded, and later on CD) Binaural stereo headphone FM listening programs like the more 

recent 'Binaural Audition' hosted by John Sunier.

In other words, the need for universal playback ability, without problems, created very bad 

'mojo' for using anything termed 'Binaural ' for pro-media requirements. 

This was the case when I researched 'HRTF' or 'psychoacoustic' audio effects BEFORE the terms 

existed in the mid 80's. 

Suggest it's best NOT to say Binaural when describing my DSM method in the same sentence 

unless containing the 'not' word, maybe with some explanation included for having some 

understanding that this is 'NOT your father's binaural' microphone and method! Recent 'quasibinaural' 

term is only slightly more descriptive, but I never really liked the connotation or 

inference that this is again just another (nonprofessional) 'binaural' method. 

Maybe DSM is 'New Binaural' as compared to 'Old Binaural'? ............. No, maybe not, as I feel 

this still carries the old stigmata. 

Anyway, my '89 patent is at least good for technically understanding some real differences 

between 'true in-ear Binaural' mics, and the Dimensional Stereo-surround Microphone (DSM) 

method of sound pickup. For less dry reading to get the important points in hopefully 

entertaining language, go to page: http://www.sonicstudios.com/multitrk.htm 

My MP3 DSM recordings page is there so anyone can experience real 'Stereo-surround' virtual 

reality with NO common 'binaural' playback constraints. Listen on headphones, stereo, surround 

systems; play it back in MONO. 

Yes, DSM sounds just like 'binaural,' except when played in mono, stereo, or surround speaker 

systems. Binaural never sounded this good, how can it be Binaural? 

Give a listen; Go to: http://www.sonicstudios.com/mp3.htm 

Final word is on Dummy Head technology. 

Yes, most makers of 'dummy head' mics mostly get the shape/size correct, but little else that 

really matters. HRTF usually means 'head related transfer function' of air-born acoustical 

energy. 

Our bony heads are surrounded by 'water saturated tissue' ABSORBING MOSTLY ALL 

frequencies of ACOUSTIC ENERGY, and this composition reflects virtually nothing, or very, very 

little sound over the entire acoustic spectrum of frequencies. 

Kinda like a big black hole for acoustic energy. As such, the head (and to a lesser degree the 

upper body) create a truly unique signature to the mics positioned at or near the head's surface. 

Sonic Studios, and NO other manufacturer of 'Dummy Head' baffles is even close in replicating

this needed signature using proper acoustic materials and design. GUY and LiteGUY HRTF 

baffle faithfully replicate this needed absorption at virtually all acoustic frequencies, and with 

virtually no reflections. 

Result of DSM recording system's advanced acoustical design is the consistent ability to record 

EXACTLY what a live sound actually sounded like everytime, anyplace, of anything, for playback 

for everyone on headphones, stereo/surround speaker systems with an uncommon virtual 

realism. 

Calling DSM binaural is asking for the usual ridicule from the proaudio media creators we need 

most to get the 'lets get more real' message. 

Until then, mostly amateur recordists using those 'binaural' methods will be making the most 

realistic recordings on Earth 

So whatdoyouthink Allen? Can you use any of this on a Binaural interest web site? 

I certainly hope so. It's about time we at least get 'more real' choices on how our consumer 

music/film/TV/radio audio is being recorded. 

DSM is not 'your father's binaural' to say the least! 

I will stop the drum beating at this point to return everyone to our regular schedule program of 

'Multitrack Mix Recording Hell' (in Dolby 5.1 surround where broadcast)! 

Best Regards in Sound & Music Recording, 

Leonard (& Debbie) Lombardo 

---------------------------- 

Sonic Studios "18 Years of Stereo/Surround Audio History with DSM Microphones" 

Patented HRTF Portable Ambient Systems for Multichannel Field/Studio/Event Recording 

--------------------------------- 

Informative Web Site: http://www.sonicstudios.com/ 

DSM Microphones, MD/DAT/CF/HD/Laptop Portable Multichannel Recording 

Systems/reviews+tips+FAQ+mp3 

USA FREE: 1-877-347-6642 TEL: 541-459-8839 

So, you have to buy the glasses, mics and a power pack? Is the genral model OK for a newbie like me? I've reread the pages (very 

informative) but since i haven't done this before I am wondering how different the ATA 822 would be from these mounted mics. Is the 

advantage in that you actually are using two separate(d) mics? Hope these questions don't get to you but I am a real newbie. Thanks, 

Bill >> 

>> 

I really don't mind your questions and appreciate your interest in sound recording; it's a very satisfying hobby if you can tolerate the 

snobs with more money to spend than real knowledge of recording technique. 

While Mono sound recording uses just one mic perspective, stereo sound is the capturing of sound from two perspectives (like our 

vision with two spaced optic sensors). 

A single point microphone (AT-822 & similar) cannot actually get that perspective of the sound field because of too narrow a focus. In 

addition, the effect of our head causes a 'modulation' of the sound before we again modulate the sound with our ear shape. 

Spaced microphone recordings without a head baffle have multiple problems and do not offer complete dimensional aspects of the 

ambient sound to be recorded. 

Wearing the two miniature pickups with your head as the baffle offers the most natural and effective way to record sound that is 

virtually realistic. 

Any other method of microphone technique tends to be difficult to learn for getting satisfactory results and the stereo never sounds as 

realistic. 

Mounting the mics is variable and eyegear is just one way to comfortably get them in place. The main idea is to have your head 

between and not be too close to the ears so that the recordings playback well over speakers. 

If you are getting the D7/8/100 deck, you can operate the DSM without the powering adapter but may need one if Loud Bass Heavy 

Rock is your main goal. 

I have mostly all 6S grades for doing the louder music but can offer a bit of a price break on the listed prices. Let me know again what 

your deck is and the type(s) of music that is currently your main interest. 

Sometimes I have a good condition second-hand DSM (traded-in) set with the Sensitivity that may be suitable for you to start with. 

PA-6LC3 Bass reduction powering adapter with the switch is maybe too much money, but there is a new PA-6LC model with no 

switch that's set at 65 cycles, the most used setting for loud Rock recording for $125 


Leonard Lombardo, Sonic Studios(tm)..."Making Audio History With DSM(tm) Microphones" 

---------------------------------------------------------- 

Hi Leonard, 

Thanks for the advice - sort of. Re the use of the ST250, I think a 

key part of my query was the "borrow" part, I ain't spending $6K for a 

mic - and it might be worth adding that the person I'm borrowing it 

from is Jeff Silberman, so I think I'll be able to take advantage of 

his experience with this mic and its intricacies. 

I was wondering more about which XLR connector would be appropriate 

for the mic cable side of the connection. I was told it was a female 

XLR, just wanted to confirm that was correct. I'm not as familiar with 

balanced cable conventions as unbalanced. And I don't know whether a 

locking XLR on my cable side requires a special XLR on the mic cable 

side of things. I have been told that your mini-jack connector is the 

way to go, so that's why I'm checking with you. 

I'm scheduled to play with the ST250 tomorrow, so I'll be able to see 

for myself which connectors apply. I'll get back to you next week. 

Have a nice weekend. 

Regards, 

Steve Brown 

>> 

Hello again Steve., 

IF anyone knows how to use the Soundfield, it's Jeff Silberman! 

My main gripe about most of the other Stereo mic/methods is that they are not following what nature actually does within the acoustic 

reception area. Thiese alternate methods that do not resemble our natural instincts at stereo field reception and listening to 3- 

dimensional ambient cues resulting in a far less versatile microphone for the trouble and expense than expected. 

These methods are very finicky to provide good results and take a master at a particular technique to get outstanding results 

The need for preprocessing and later decoding (other than simple Dolby pro-logic type) also limits the end uses for these recording 

even when excellent. 

Keeping this in mind, you absolutely should get as much experience as possible with a wide variety of mics and methods. Learning 

how to use the Soundfield from Jeff Silberman couldn't provide a better way to know about this technique; he is one of the admitted 

masters in using this mic method and always gets good and occasionally excellent results. 

DSM mic/method is a most versatile/natural way to record 3-D stereo and can also be configured as a stand-alone mic at far less cost 

than the Soundfield. 

The Sonic Studios web site listed below has very informative magazine reviews and the taping tips page will be at least helpful in a 

general way. The Multitrack artical will elaborate on the DSM stereo mics/methods in detail.

Let me know what you find out about the actual XLR configuration needed. If it 's a single XLR but a stereo feed, it would help to 

know the pin's1,2,3 signal designations. 



TEL: 541-459-8839 /\ FAX: 541-459-8842 /\ USA Free: 1-877-347-6642 

============================================ 

In a message dated 98-02-21 15:03:49 EST, you write: 

> 

I'm sure that there are many who value the very accomodating way of doing business that Len displays here; 'The Customer is always 

right' may apply here as well.

This brings to mind the period when Sonic Studios got a rash of determined calls from customers and prospects to provide 

'directional' DSM microphone that would help reject the side chatter that is often encountered at venues. 

As I recall, there was a very strong and determined group of future 'Cardioid type' mic buyers who commented that they would much 

rather by such a product from me than anywhere else if I could only supply it. 

This type of mic was going to be THE product that would sweep the stealth mic recording market and I was told that if I would only 

make it available, I would 'corner the market' for this type of mic. 

As many here know, I balked at the opportunity because I knew this mic would work better than the Omni type DSM in rare cases and 

disappoint the recordist with a much thinner, off axis distorted, and inferior stereo imaged recording ............. mostly. 

Although easy enough to provide, I just couldn't face making money off a directional microphone that would ultimately prove to be a 

poor value for general hi-quality recording requirements; also, complaints were certain to follow from the very same people who 

demanded this type of mic thinking that the gain in off-axis sound rejection would offset the loss of sound quality. NOT!!! 

All of us who have followed the somewhat sad saga of the Core Sound Cardioids know how vocal and confusing this dissatisfaction can 

be in this digest. 

I would suggest to Len that he use better judgement (this time) than his prospects for certain types of mic variations are currently 

showing. Profiting from a customers lack of knowledge when requested seems OK at first, but there is always a price that's paid paid 

by the supplier of such gear even when the customer is warned. 

So far, I have refused to supply several variations of the DSM formula mics regardless of what the customer was willing to spend 

because it would've resulted at least one step backwards in recording quality even after all the gained benefits, in the best 

circumstances, were figured. 

I certainly do NOT laugh on the way to the bank as a result. Thanks to a consistant quality product line, I also don't have much need 

to cry during bank trips either. 

So, if knowing better...........(AND If money is no object)...............'Just Say NO!" 




============================================= 

I'd like to have your product comparison files (DSM vs. Core). 

Thanks 

Mika 

>> 

Hello Mika, 

Thank you for expressing interest in Sonic Studios products. 

There are no comparison files available as such. I've heard that CORE has something like these that are NOT public (like not 

available for viewing on his web page.... truth is not something that's often left hidden from view unless..... it's prejudice(?) and not 

factual), but are privately sent upon request to prospects. I refrained from offering such opinions as it's really best that DSM owners 

speak their own experience when asked by others directly or perhaps you've gained experience yourself from trading and hearing the 

results of different microphones from a good sampling of conditions and recording techniques. The former is how many tapers get 

acquainted with Core Sound and DSM quality issues. 

FACT: DSM mics are warranted for 2 years and customers have a full 60 days to return purchases not meeting expectations. I still 

have fingers left from a total of refund requests over the 13 years of suppling mics. 

If you'd like to read the reviews that are available on the Sonic Studios Web site, this will give you unbiased experience from seasoned 

professionals. This should be more valuable over what any owner has to say about their own product from files kept closed to general 

viewing.... or so it would seem. 

After visiting the site, ask me direct questions that pertain to your own specific recording requirements and present or future portable 

recording deck 

I will tell you that I've been doing acoustics and audio as an innovator and engineer for over 35 years and microphones for going on 13 

years with very good acceptance in both product and customer service areas. The partial listing of companies using the DSM 

microphones is real. Very satisfied repeat and referral business is what has kept me more than fully employed doing just what's 

displayed on the site. 

You might note that when a few pro magazines did reviews of Sonic Studios and Core's mics, the DSM product was given fuller 

upstaged description to the Core offerings by the reviewers that had both our products on equal basis for evaluation... it does make 

you think. 

Take some time and review the material and taping tips on my site and get back if there's further interest and questions I can answer. 




========================================= 

Hi, 

You may have seen my name on the DAT-heads list recently enquiring about 

buying my first set of mics to go with my new Sony D100 for live recording. 

As budget is a prime concern I was looking at some of the Core Sound 

Binaurals following many favourable comments and I have a copy of their 

sampler tape which I like very much. 

However, a significant number of people have emailed me to say they are not 

as good as they seem and as an alternative I should consider either similar 

mics made by Sound Professionals (which come with variable bass roll-off) 

or your DSM-6 mics which I have only heard one bad comment about. Everyone 

says they are far superior though they do cost somewhat more. I therefore 

have a few questions I hope you will answer for me. 

I was under the impression that your mics needed a mod to the recorder to 

work properly (something I am reluctant to have done as I am in the UK and 

don't really want the expense and worry of shipping the unit overseas plus 

it would invalidate the extended warranty I have) but having looked more 

closely at your web site I see they can also be powered by your PA-6 series 

external adaptors. 

Have I got this right? I would be particularly interested in the PA-6LC3 

with the selectable bass roll-off though $200 seems a lot for this in 

addition to the mics. 

Anyway, I would be looking to record a variety of bands though mostly of 

the very loud rock/metal sort (Metallica, Aerosmith etc) through to artists 

like The Black Crowes and Sting in venues ranging in size from clubs to 

large arenas. For various reasons I cannot always stand near the PA, but 

like to be near the soundboard where it is usually still very loud. 

From your listings, the DSM-6/EL or DSM-6/L models would seem to fit my 

requirements, but with the PA-6LC3 this would be $550. Somewhat more than I 

was looking to spend, but if they really are that much better, it may be 

worth considering. 

Which of your mics would you suggest I consider based on my intended use as 

described above? 

Does the PA-6LC3 allow you to have no bass roll-off or is it always on in 

one way or another? 

If you could forward any other information or comments from customers that 

I may find useful I'd be very grateful. BTW, I live in England. I take it 

there would be no problem in taking an order from me. I understand you

don't offer Visa facilities so i'd have to sort out some other method of 

payment if i decide to buy from you. 

PS: What are the dimensions of the PA-6LC3 external power adaptor? 

Thanks for any help, 

- Howard 

>> 

Hello Howard, 

Thank you for considering Sonic Studios DSM microphones. Your interest is appreciated. 

Yes, DSM do cost more but most customers find the value is more than doubled for the recording quality, reliability, and customer 

service provided in direct comparison to alternative products. 

Your choice of DSM-6S/L or EL models coupled with the PA-6LC3 seems appropriate for your requirements. If doing mostly the 

louder and bass heavy venues, then the NEW and less costly PA-6LC ($125) has the most selected and usable bass frequency rolloff of 

65 cycles. This may be all you'd need for most everything intended. The 6LC(3) is similar in size to all the other adapters which is 

about the size of two BIC lighters side-by-side and use a single AA powering cell in an open frame holder. 

The D100 can also directly power the DSM mics but at reduced sensitivity and a bit less clarity due to the much lower available 

current from the stock deck. Using the SBM-1 Sony Outboard Processor Accessory with powering the DSM will provide much better 

or almost optimum mic powering with direct SBM-1 mic input. This would be only appropriate if getting all the bass available is 

desired. 




Informative WEB SITE: HTTP://WWW.SONICSTUDIOS.COM 

"A bit of knowledge coupled to a great deal of wisdom serves us best" 

You may already have seen this recent DAT-Heads post? Here are also a few others. 

------------------------------ 

From: powerpro 

Subject: OASIS-Tokyo 2/20/98 

Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 23:09:50 +0900 

I just taped Oasis at Budokan last night, and am offering it for trade. It 

turned out very nice. It runs 100 minutes. It was taped with a D100 and 

Sonic Studios DSM-6S mics. I'd like to say thanks to Leonard Lombardo at 

Sonic Studios for making such great mics. They worked a small miracle by 

cutting out the excessively overdriven bass in the venue, and turning out a 

very fine recording. I seriously suggest anyone who is in the market for

new mics to take a look at these. By the way, I'm in no way affiliated 

with this company. 

If interested in trades, please send your list via e-mail, and please 

include the word OASIS in all caps in the subject line so I can run a 

filter on Eudora. 

Peter 

---------------------- 

From: bruce..com (Bruce N) 

Subject: Sonic Sense DSM-6S Initial Impressions 

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 08:02:53 -0800 (PST) 

Brothers & sisters, 

I finally got a chance to use my 

DSM-6S mics on 3/20/97, recording Clan Dyken at the Catalyst, in Santa 

Cruz, CA. The band allowed me to tape them, so I didn't have to stealth; 

just sat on a bench-like thing in front of the board & recorded away. I 

did not have either the external battery pack or the D-8 modification, so 

I was a little hesitant to use them; but I'm pleased, for the most part, 

with what I got: 

Recording Quality: I thought the resulting tapes were excellent -- clean 

& clear, with decent bass presence & good high end. A little muddiness in 

some places, but I think that was more due to the room acoustics, than my 

mics. 

Usability: I could have rigged them to a mic stand that was there, & all 

things considered, that would have been the better choice. But, I also 

wanted to see how they'd work as "binaurals", so I hung them on my glasses. 

They were somewhat uncomfortable & a little distracting, I thought. I believe 

this is something that can be gotten used to, though, & I think it 

won't be a problem for later shows. 

Bottom Line: I thought they will do WONDERFUL for the my intended purpose: 

stealthing small jazz outfits in small, smoky jazz clubs. I wouldn't use 

them at any show I'm interested in dancing at, though. Overall, they were 

excellent sounding tapes, & I'm QUITE pleased with my little $400 wonders. 

goddess bless, 

bruce 

------------------------------------ 

------------------------------

From: Barry @io.com> 

Subject: Re: CSBs, D8 and "Snaps" 

Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 23:09:33 -0500 

>> Last night I recorded a show at a small club. I was running 

>> CSBs (battery box) into the line in of my D8 (as usual). My tape 

>> sound wonderful, one of the top 3 recordings I've made with CSBs. 

>> However, occasionaly there are these "snap" sounds on the recording. 

>> Not terribly loud and they didn't apper to affect my recording level. 

>> My peaks were consistently between -12dB and -4dB depending on the 

>> song. This is the second show this has happened to me, and I've ruled 

>> out the tape being the problem since I used two different brands for 

>> the two shows. 

> 

>I've had the same problem on several recordings using the CSBs 

>mounted to my eyeglasses. With the mics mounted in this manner, 

>you have to be *very* careful about touching your glasses while 

>recording. With mine, just touching them lightly is generally audible 

>on the recording. No surprise since many of us see the same problems 

>using conventional microphones on mic stands (at least without 

>shockmounts.) 

Same goes for the MarcSound mikes, ultra sensitive to touch or handling. 

However my old Sonic's seemed to be immune to that, some how. How do 

you manage that Leonard? 

Now if the lousy rat who lifted them from me July 16 in Austin (at a Jerry 

birthday celebration no less), would just listen to his conscience and 

return them. 

:-( 

BTW, I didn't see any mention of the Oade stealth mics in the mic review. 

Anybody out there own these? Satisfied? Also didn't see any mention of 

the MarcSounds. 

Subj: Sonic STUDIOS, not Sonic Sense! 

Date: 97-03-31 14:34:53 EST 

From: bruce.k.com (Bruce N) 

To: dat-heads@fedney.near.net 

CC: guysonic@aol.com 

Brothers & sisters, 

A couple weeks ago, I posted

a glowing testimony on the Sonic Sense DSM-6S Binaurals. 

Today, to my horror & embarassment, I discovered that I had 

posted about the wrong mics!!!!! 

The mics in question are the SONIC STUDIOS DSM-6S Binaurals. 

I am FOREVER getting Sonic Studios & Sonic Sense mixed up..... 

My fervent apologies, to Leonard & Crew, for mistakenly giving 

someone else the credit. 

But hey, all that aside... let me tell you all something, I 

am absolutely STOKED about my little mics. These SONIC STUDIOS mics 

are THE S**T. I used them to record Zero last Saturday night, standing 

about 6' from the stage, dead-center, & I must say: 

THIS IS ONE OF THE BEST AUDIENCE RECORDINGS I'VE HEARD. 

Hate to blow my own horn, but I'm not... this mics ROCK. & 

I'm not in any way affiliated with Sonic Studios or Leonard in any 

way, except as a VERY satisfied customer. They've got EXCELLENT response 

on the bass, very tight & clean, yet the high ends are clean 

& clear, crisp & tight, & there's NO sense of flooding or bass saturation 

-- & this was WITHOUT a roll-off switch. The 4 AA batteries 

powering my D-8 were fine for the evening, no battery switching required; 

I'd heard they would draw power from my deck, if I didn't 

use an external battery box, but such has not been the case so far, 

at the two shows I've taped. 

The only complaint I have about them is relatively minor, 

& that is: when wearing them, you can't really dance. Dancing means 

lots of head-swinging, & I doubt that would go over well on the recording. 

But it CAN be worked around, although the fix might then 

cause them to be not so FOB-able anymore. But, for what I bought 'em 

for -- stealth taping in small jazz clubs -- I doubt I'll find anything 

in the $400/pair price range that compares. I've heard both the 

MarcSounds & the Core Sounds, & I think these are better-sounding. Of 

course, they are more expensive, but for a DAT-taper, I doubt that's 

much of a hassle; & they aren't THAT much more expensive. 

Besides -- the results are WORTH IT. If you're a DAT-taper, 

YOU OWE IT TO YOURSELF to check these out, if you haven't already. 

goddess bless, & THANX AGAIN, Leonard!!!!! 

bruce 

======================================== 

Subject: mic comparison 

Reply-To: chuntley@ us 

Date: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 18:06:49 -0800 

Leonard Lombardo wrote: 

> 

> I would suggest to Len that he use better judgement (this time) than his 

> prospects for certain types of mic variations are currently showing. 

> Profiting from a customers lack of knowledge when requested seems OK at first, 

> but there is always a price that's paid paid by the supplier of such gear even 

> when the customer is warned. 

> 

Okay, look. For some people money IS a consideration. People who have 

it really seem to have a hard time comprehending the idea of NOT having 

it. I've asked many people for advice on mics, who keep telling me that 

you really need to spend extra money for quality and you will be glad 

you did. I don't doubt that. The problem is that not everyone can 

spend the extra money. 

I, for one, have been interested in ordering a pair of mics, and have 

looked into both the SP's and Core Sounds. 

I do believe that the CS mics are probably a very good quality mic, and 

very much worth their price tag. However, I DO NOT HAVE the necessary 

$250. Leonard, can you comprehend that? I have a low-paying job, and 

nearly every cent goes toward rent, food, and paying off loans. I 

recently purchased an MD recorder despite the fact that I could barely 

pay for it. I did so because music is my one true passion, and 

therefore I consider this a sound buy. I now need a microphone, and can 

either spend $100 on a fairly good stealth one, or use this tie-clip mic 

that will sound like shit. I would like to spend $250 for the CS, but 

literally CANNOT! Therefore, I need to buy a cheaper version, and will 

therefore go with the SP's. (And by cheaper, that is not meant as a 

slag on SP's. I am referring to price alone, as I cannot know for sure 

which brand is truly better without comparing both for myself) This 

does not mean I am an uninformed, unknowledgeable consumer. I have 

researched it as best I can. I would be greatful if Mr. Moskowitz were 

to offer a less expensive, unmodified version of his microphone for a 

lower price. I do not believe he would be "profiting from a customer's 

lack of knowledge." Spare me the condescension. 

------------------------------ 

>> 

I started into this mic business with the same passion you're now expressing; I totally am empathetic to your needs and limitations. I 

appologize for the tone that really was meant for the attitude presented by Len; his intentions were ok but, I believe a bit misguided by

gaining a customer at what cost. 

I have a recently acquired set that is quite a bit 'old' and really was an attempt to supply a left channel to a right channel that is still 

operating well enough. The left channel cord had gotten broken too near the pickup to repair so a match from old stock was 

researched and was possible for this customer as an option if a new mic set was unworkable. He opted for a new mic as he had gotten 

a whole lot of recording done over many years with the original set. 

As a result, I still have the repair solution to this older set and would be willing to offer it refurbished for $100 to you. This mic set, 

even though quite used, will still give you much better recording quality than any of the options available at twice the cost. 

I will pro-rate warranty thisDSM set for a year and if it fails during this time, I will refund you the purchase price minus $10 for every 

month over 2 months of good use. If it fails within two months, full refund or applied cost to a new model (or another more recent 

used set if available) will apply. 

Your mini-disk if a Sony, will power this set but at somewhat reduced performance from using a PA-6 powering adapter ($75). 

Results will still be quite satisfactory or I'll refund your purchase within 2 months if not quite pleased. 

If this seems fair and affordable, then give this a go. This is not one of those deals that makes good business sense for me to do on a 

regular basis (my risk/cost is way high for this reworked used product that has really no risk to yourself) but, I am also a taper and 

like to be at least as good to the tapers as they have been to me over the years of supporting me at this form of vocational income. 

Let me know and I will finish the repair on this set. You can later get a powering adapter (there might be a used one if I can dig one 

up from somewhere for $35). 



=========================================== 

Subj: Re: mic query 

Date: 02/25/98 

To: howardc@ 


> 

Thanks for the reply, 

I'm getting such conflicting information from people I'm getting more 

confused then ever. A lot of people are telling me your mics are the best, 

while others say the Cores are better, even though they are cheaper. 

I've included some comments from the Core Sound web page which reflect some 

of the opinions I've received and while I don't want to encourage you to 

just down a competitor, i'd appreciate any comments you have that address 

the concerns reflected by these comments.

A lot of them seem to be from people using the D7. Was there any problem 

with that machine that might cause the problems reported? 

Also, Len at Core has said that they have a battery box with bass roll-off 

switching available any day now so this puts all the manufacturers on a 

fairly even footing. Aarrgggh. I seem no closer to being able to make a 

decision. If only I could afford to put the money up to try them all. 

Though even if i could, I don't go to enough shows to be able to try them 

all out anyway in the time allowed. 

Finally, will powering your mics from the PA-6LC3 give the same quality as 

the mod-2 modification or is there some differences between the two? 

REPLY: The only real difference would be that this powering adapter always provides some bass rolloff. Going direct would have the 

advantage of full bass bandwidth. 

Thanks again. Everyone is trying to be very helpful and informative, but it 

seems the more I hear the more confused I get. 

- Howard 

I'd appreciate any comments on the following: 

USER COMMENTS FROM CORE SOUND: 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

R.A., a DAT user from North Carolina, writes: 

They sound great, I'm extremely pleased! Wish to hell I'd bought these 

instead of the Sonic Studios in the first place. I've been fighting those 

mikes since last June, recorded 15 or so shows with frustrating distortion 

almost every time. Yours work better. 

...I had the D7 in my pocket, and I'd take it out periodically to set the 

levels, slip it back in my pocket... and then when the music seemed to be 

getting louder, pull it out and gasp in horror as I saw themeters hitting 

0db. With the Sonics I would have had a very poor tape, but with the CSB's 

it is better sounding than the Sonics with good levels. ... 

Hey, thanks for making these great mikes. 

Bill, a DAT user from Massachussetts, writes: 

I'm glad I finally ordered your mics. I've used them for the past month or

so, and have been very pleased with them. I wish I had discovered your mics 

before I bought the Sonic Studios - yours cost less, and they are better. I 

run the mics into your -12 dB attenuator cord and then into my Casio 

DA-R100 with -20 dB. I have not heard any distortion at all - very unlike 

the Sonic Studios. 

Thanks for the mics - they are great! I will recommend them to people over 

the Sonics! 

W.S., a DAT user, writes: 

You might be interested to know that I talked with a taper who's trying to 

run Sonic Studios into a D7. After numerous pairs of mics, he still has 

distortion problems. Of course I told him I use Core Sounds without any 

problem! And they're 1/2 the price! 

J.B., a DAT user, writes: 

Hey! I'm loving the CSCs! That pickup pattern is really ideal in 

less-than-ideal situations! 

Just thought you might want to see what some other traders were saying 

about my recordings with your mics. This guy uses Neumann KM184s on a 

regular basis as well. 

[Quoted from mail he received:] "...got your tape today. I think it sounds 

great! At first i thought it was lacking bass but two minutes into it I 

realized that it was just good clean sound! These are the Core Sound Cards? 

How much are they?? I may rather stealth with these rather than sonics." 

>> 

Hello Howard, 

I'm very sorry to see that an intelligent market search for opinions and experience has created a great amount of confusion. 

This may be due to some sources being not limited to actual truthful comments. I've seen many 'planted' CSB user raves that also 

offer a CSB tape made in 'trade for....' . At first glance, this seems normal for the DAT-Heads digest but, after a regular half a dozen 

or more of these appearing nearly identical worded posts in succession of every other digest, it becomes apparent that these are a 

marketing formula tack that at least 'encouraged' by affiliates of CS; the mailing source of some of these are also somewhat suspect. 

NOTE: The DAT-Heads marketing list that shows most of the DAT related support businesses has stopped listing CORE as a mic 

supplier(!) and I think this has been at least because of the less than honest approach to marketing. This has occured in the last few 

years or so after LEN at CORE has been given full listing as mic supplier for almost 5 years previous. IT DOES MAKE YOU 

WONDER!!

There has been more than one person mentioning that Len at CORE creates at least some of his own user comments!!! These same 

comments have been on his site for a very long time and the 'tone' and language of the ones that directly down Sonic Studios seem (at 

least to me) to be from the same person if looked with the perspective of a hand-writing analysis. 

I have been supplying DSM microphones since 1985 (far longer than any of the 'other' businesses that were inspired to follow) and 

have maybe 100 written comments on satisfaction with the DSM product and service. While some are very enthusiastic, I don't have 

the kind of 'tone' that is represented in the CORE site and it's extremely rare to find any of them (some also CSB owners) really badmouthing 

CORE, they just don't go out of their way to say things like that. About the only comments that mention CORE from recent 

customers are more in the form of liking the DSM product better and maybe a rare ' glad to not have to use those anymore' remark. I 

do have these from REAL people but stopped supplying these comments unless permission was directly granted to use full names or if 

the comment was actually published for general viewing in a magazine. 

There are now enough tape traders using DSM microphones that private type user comments are now far less valuable to the 

researcher than the experience of an actual traded series of consistantly good sounding tapes from honest unbiased sources. For 

you and those just getting into the hobby, finding truthful information is more challenging and in this case, bound to be confusing. 

Professional users are another matter, a lot of them have taken the tack of 'best kept secret' so that their competition has less 

advantage! Wyle Stateman of Soundelux (seen in many recent film credits) is just one of many who's taken this stance while also 

telling me that DSM are his favorite field mics; takes them everywhere. 

It may help to note that when ROCK venues started getting much louder (bigger speakers & amps in the PA market; users acquiring 

moree effective earplugs), there were some DSM microphones with too high a sensitivity, presenting audible mic limited overloads 

and/or overloading the deck's limited input range with too much signal. The solution was much lower gain mics and listening to the 

results from user tapes when problems occured. These overload problems have been solved for over 5 years now and maybe that's 

why comments seemed to be from users of the older D7 decks which were much more easily overloaded than the previous D3 DAT 

model. 

I hope this helps you in making the best descisions for your situation. Let me know what more can be done to assist. 




==================================== 

Subj: Re: mic query "The continued.......!" 

Date: 02/26/98 

To: howardc@ 

Hello again Howard, 

I'll address the issues & questions as best I can in the body of your mail. 


From: howardc@ 

To: GuySonic@aol.com 

At 16:21 25/02/98 EST, you wrote: 

> 

> Finally, will powering your mics from the PA-6LC3 give the same quality as 

> the mod-2 modification or is there some differences between the two? 

> 

>REPLY: The only real difference would be that this powering adapter always 

>provides some bass rolloff. Going direct would have the advantage of full 

>bass bandwidth. 

> 

> 

Isn't it possible to have no bass roll-off using this powering adaptor? 

REPY: Not with this adapter, only by direct DSM mic connection to the Sony deck Plug-in-Powering feature or with another model of 

PA- adapter. 

>Hello Howard, 

> 

>I'm very sorry to see that an intellegent market search for opinions and 

>experience has created a great amount of confusion. 

Me too. 

> 

>This may be due to some sources being not limited to actual truthful comments. 

>I've seen many 'planted' CSB user raves that also offer a CSB tape made in 

>'trade for....'. At first glance, this seems normal for the DAT-Heads 

>digest but, after a regular half a dozen or more of these appearing nearly 

>identical worded posts in succession of every other digest, it becomes 

>apparrent that these are a marketing formula tack that're at least 

>'encouraged' by affiliates of CS; the mailing source of some of these are 

also 

>somewhat suspect. 

> 

>NOTE: The DAT-Heads marketing list that shows most of the DAT related support 

>businesses has stopped listing CORE as a mic supplier(!) and I think this has 

>been at least because of the less than honest approach to marketing. This 

has 

>occured in the last few years or so after LEN at CORE has been given full 

>listing as mic supplier for almost 5 years previous. IT DOES MAKE YOU 

>WONDER!! 

> 

Yes it does, though I hadn't noticed the fact. They still appear on the

vendors links page. 

COMMENT: Yes, CORE is still listed as a supplier of cables and 'other stuff', but no longer mentioned as a mic supplier in the last 2-3 

versions of the market posting! 

Though he may be using a "less than honest approach to marketing" it 

doesn't imply that he is trying to push an inferior product on an 

unsuspecting public. 

COMMENT: When honesty is not the best policy in marketing, it's suspect (to at least me) on where the line is going to be drawn with 

other customer important issues in the future; specially appropriate consideration for sole ownership company operators where the 

engineering, marketing, and customer service is really done by this same individual. 

There are too many people using his mics (and presumably very happy with 

them) for this to be the case. And i have to reiterate that I like the 

sound of what I have heard on their sampler tape. Yes, I know these will be 

carfully chosen recordings 

REPLY: Even a generally bad sounding microphone can be made to sound very good under special circumstances. Making a demo 

tape as being a 'representative' of as what mic generally sounds like is what the listener of these tapes 'thinks' he's hearing is 

misleading and seems typical of the CORE marketing approach. I refuse to allow any misrepresentation of any of my products to 

prevail, even if it generates 'sales'. 

>There has been more than one person mentioning that Len at CORE creates at 

>least some of his own user comments!!! These same comments have been on his 

>site for a very long time and the 'tone' and language of the ones that 

>directly down Sonic Studios seem (at least to me) to be from the same person 

>if looked with the perspective of a hand-writing analysis. 

> 

hmmmm, wouldn't like to say. However, comments saying how good his mics are 

is one thing, but those comments that pick on a particular competitor 

(always you it seems) are a little unnecessary. Most people would comment 

out the competitors name i would have thought. 

>About the only comments that mention CORE from recent customers 

>are more in the form of liking the DSM product better and maybe a rare ' glad 

>to not have to use those anymore' remark. 

I've received emails from what I believe to be genuine people (unless you 

are contacting satisfied customers to tell me how great our mics are) some 

of whom have always used DSM's and some who have swapped from the Cores. 

One guy said that making the change gave him back the excitement and 

pleasure he had missed when using the Cores. It wasn't that the Cores were 

particularly bad, he said they gave a good recording it was just they 

sounded very safe and slightly dull, whereas yours make recordings sparkle. 

(His words not mine).

However, only the opposite note, some people have said that your mics seems 

to unnaturally boost the high frequencies which makes recordings sound 

harsh and brittle!!! 

You see my problem. If the last comment is true, it probably isn't what I 

want. 

REPLY: I have never heard that kind of remark and would not have a clue about the source if I had not received last year two 

recordings (one a DAT and the other a 'bootleg packaged' CD supposedly both DSM recordings). Both these recordings could easily 

be described as the above! In addition, all the dimensional aspects of these recordings has vanished if they were there at 

all!!!.........How could this be?? 

After recovering from the shock, I thought about how could such a fine microphone produce (under any circumstance) such garbage. 

There ARE things that can happen to a DSM microphone .... during the recording .... and/or in............... 'post production'.....!!! 

1) The user can position the mic or use them in a way that eliminates the dimensional sound cues with mounting in other ways than 

recommended. This may explain some of the loss of spatial sound, but not the loss of tone. 

2) With the advent of CD-R and computor software to manipulate the sound, many with no taste or ears use these tools to mangle the 

sound to their 'taste' by eliminating the bass completely and boosting the high frequencies in multiple bands of a graphic type of 

equalization. 

This would also eliminate or greatly reduce coherent phase information resulting a recording with no dimensional sound and produce 

a recording with no natural tones. 

This is what has got to have happened to these recordings. I know better after having used these mics for thousands of recordings 

under all circumstances. 

BOTTOM LINE: A recording may not tell the truth about the microphone used, ONLY the overall taste of the recordist who passes 

such to others. A special circumstance recording can make a microphone sound exceptional or awful. Post Manipulation of the 

recording can entirely change the tone character and spatial qualities (usually for the worse, especially when overdone). 

>There are now enough tape traders using DSM microphones that private type 

user 

>comments are now far less valuable to the researcher than the experience 

of an actual traded series of consistantly good sounding tapes from honest unbiased 

>sources. For you and those just getting into the hobby, finding truthful 

>information is more challenging and in this case, bound to be confusing. 

> 

Yes. A number of people admit that the Cores do produce good recordings, 

just not as good i.e. they don't have the depth and presence that your mics 

can produce. Though whether that difference is worth the extra $300 or so 

is what I'm trying to find out. 

REPLY: A sense of Quality seems mostly acquired with experience ................ "Life is too short not to purchase the best quality you can

afford" 

Starting with the best known afforded recording system value supports the development of an ear for sound quality and a more lasting 

appreciation for the resulting recordings. This does seem to be exactly what this long discussion is about! 

>It may help to note that when ROCK venues started getting much louder (bigger 

>speakers & amps in the PA market; users acquiring more effective earplugs), 

>there were some DSM microphones with too high a sensitivity, presenting 

>audible mic limited overloads and/or overloading the deck's limited input 

>range with too much signal. The solution was much lower gain mics and 

>listening to the results from user tapes when problems occured. These 

>overload problems have been solved for over 5 years now and maybe that's why 

>comments seemed to be from users of the older D7 decks which were much more 

>easily overloaded than the previous D3 DAT model. 

> 

This is what I was hoping you'd say and what I assumed. It's odd that the 

Core comments that down your mics all refer to people using the older D7. 

At the time they were maybe very valid problems, but I would have hoped 

they were sorted out now. 

Looking at the spec sheet for your mics there seem to be models handling 

massive SPL's (I presume without distortion), way over the limit of 

anything I've been aware of listening to. 

In the Guiness Book of Records (I don't know if you get that in the USA) 

the loudest concert on record (before they stopped measuring it) was Iron 

Maiden at the Donington Festival here in the UK. I was at that show and the 

sound was measured at 128db at the Soundboard and that was in the open air. 

Your mics are rated well over this so the only problem I see is with them 

overloading the input stage (can this happen going line-in or only mic-in) 

on the recorder, which I presume prevents them from powered correctly. 

REPLY: Most of the 'Loud' energy from such venues is 98% BASS and using the Bass reduction adapter will help prevent the deck's 

mic input from overload. DSM mics are generally not high enough output or not suitable for Line input, but are designed to operate 

within the limits of the deck's mic input specifications when the proper microphone model is chosen for the application. 

>I hope this helps you in making the best descisions for your situation. Let 

>me know what more can be done to assist. 

> 

Possibly. I've had a email from a guy who is recording the band Dream 

Theater in Belgium who I like, with some DSM's tonight I believe, so I'm 

hoping he might be willing to send me a copy so I can hear what the mics 

are like. They are typical of the sort of band I will be recording i.e. 

very very loud rock (though not pain threshold loud). If i can get to hear 

this tape, it will probably help me a lot.

QUESTION: Could this be Anders? 

I think the only thing I could ask is it would be nice if you offered a 

sampler tape in the same way that Core do. I know it's not ideal, but I 

have no DAT's to trade yet, so getting hold of recordings of bands I know 

with the various mics is difficult. A sampler tape at least gives some idea 

of how the mics sound. 

I think I'd probably be happy with whatever I get and it really comes down 

to money. The Cores may not be the best around, but whatever Len's 

marketing ploys are, it seems difficult to deny that they are good mics to 

go for if you really can't afford anything else. 

Thanks for being so patient with my numerous questions. I really appreciate 

it. 

- Howard 

>> 

Please be assured, I have not contacted any of my customers to reply to you. 

Perhaps this inquiry could be documented and put on my web site for others with your permission??? It would seem useful to others 

if presented in an honest way (might need some editing to reduce length?) and help reduce some of the confusion that has existed for 

many years; seems to not be getting a whole lot better. 




Informative WEB SITE: HTTP://WWW.SONICSTUDIOS.COM 

====================================== 

> 

Hello Roberto, 

Yes & NO. I start with a type of Panasonic made capsule (usually special ordered) and that's where any similarity ends. DSM mics 

use a formula of electrical/mechanical/acoustic techniques to make a very unique microphone that sounds and performs like no other 

mic available. You're attempting an apples to oranges comparison that will not produce an understanding of what the DSM mic is 

really about ! .......... it's a formula........ not at all a particular capsule. 

Best Regards in Sound & Music Recording,

Leonard Lombardo 

---------------------------------------- 

================================= 

> 

Hello Roberto, 

Everything is considered with the DSM formula, including the physical modification of the capsule itself. I do post often if appropriate 

but don't use the baited post method to then respond with a marketing post as Len and others seem to too often do. 

I rely on the tapes being traded and word-of-mouth from others to spread the good word. Your participation with this is appreciated 

only when appropriate. 

Downloadable MPEG-3 sound clips will soon be available at my site so check back and download the Windows decoder and some good 

DSM sound recordings. 

I don't know what the maximizer does and haven't heard this 'effect' processing myself. Is this a software processor or only a 

hardware type?? 



---------------------------------------- 

============================================== 

From: willard >

Subject: Stealthing Larger mics/Am I crazy 

Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 11:40:16 -0500 

What 'larger' mics do people stealth with aside from the 

CoreSounds/Sonic Studios - basically I am wanting to upgrade from 

my CoreSound Cardioids (which I have gotten some fantastic recordings from) 

and am wondering if I should go to the B&K omnis that CS/SS are selling 

($900-1400) or something else (if so what), I know it depends on usage 

so I would like to be able to stealth these things in pretty tight 

situations for primarily louder rock shows - and mostly smaller venues. 

I would be very interested in what people have to say. 

thanks 

Will 

>> 

Hello Will, 

The DSM-6S/L or EL models are far superior to the Core product and at excellent value for price. The DSM-9M (based on DPA- 

4061) might be an improvement in smaller size and sound quality over the DSM-6S but, the much higher cost makes it not as good a 

value....... still worth the asking price ..... 

Only one customer with DSM-9M experience......... found it not sensitive enough (for pure acoustic instrument/vocal) but considered it 

to sound better to him than equally priced Sony MS-5 model. For your requirement, it would be good choice for being able to handle 

very loud sources without strain........ + enough output for line level input. 



--------------------------------------- 

pipes. 

I thought maybe a binaural arrangement in the best listening place? 

Anyone have any ideas??? 

Huw 

>> 

Hello Huw, 

Ambient Stereo recordings (such as you are attempting) are most challenging unless the microphone AND method allows good 

assessment of by what you're actually hearing in any chosen mic'g position. The binaural method allows this, but doesn't translate 

well to other than headphones only recordings....... speaker playback of binaral mostly causes abberrations of tone and image ........ 

Another technique using the DSM mic/method has the highest probability of success over any other recording approach............ My 

site listing of professional users and magazine reviews helps greatly to verify this........ as well as recent St. James Cathedral sound 

clips (.MP3 Downloadable with player) where 5 pipe organs were played. 

Questions are always welcome. 



---------------------------------------- 

> 

Eric's mics are indeed excellent......... the problem is with the method of using them for stereo applications..... he does offer a good 

matched set but spaced omni's are problematic in definition of ambient space....... . the only way to get coherent ambient recordings is 

to use a 'psycho-acoustical' method (the DSM approach has the most advantage here)....... the DSM microphones use the same starting 

capsule as the earthworks (but different acoustic/electrical treatments) in a more usable stereo form factor and offers better electrical 

match to the portable DAT decks currently available. 


Leonard Lombardo

---------------------------------- 

 

> In article , thilof@aol.com 

> (ThiloF) writes: 

> 

> >Subject: room mics for drums? 

> >From: thilof@aol.com (ThiloF) 

> >Date: 19 May 1998 10:48:34 GMT 

> > 

> >i'm looking to get a pair of mics specifically for room micing of drums 

> >i hear pzm's are a good choice for that task 

> >i know crown and AT make them (model #'s??) 

> >what other choices are there? 

> >where do i place them to get a good overall balance and a good stereo image 

> >match to the overheads? 

> >i've never really used room mics before so please enlighten me on all aspects 

> >on it 

> > 

> >the room is about 25 x 15, 10ft ceiling ,carpeted, textured drywall and 

> >removable absorptive panels 

> > 

> >thanks 

> >> 

> 

> Jim Keltner has used Sonic Studios DSM mics as both headworn and placed 

> 'PZM-like' against the studio wall (during a Bob Dylan LA studio session) with 

> stated excellent performance for drums and room ambient stereo 

> performance........ Bob briefly auditioned the 'wall' recording on Jim's car 

> stereo system and liked the results enough to seriously suggest that Jim do the 

> recording engineering for future sessions! 

> 

> More details on DSM mics on my web site listed below. 

> 

I listened to some of those recordings on the web site and wow! Very 

nice! I was wondering if by chance you've heard of anyone using the DSM 

mics for micing guitar amps for more accurate recordings of what the

guitarist actually hears from the amp. I can get pretty good sounds 

with SM-57's, 421's, ect...but it would be very nice to get a good 

detailed stereo sound without all the fuss moving around room mics and 

dealing with phase problems ect.... I've gotten interesting results 

using PZM mics on guitar cabinets but I'm still looking for something a 

bit more accurate, and the DSM mics seem to be pretty damn accurate. 

Oh, I'm recording mainly heavily distorted guitar sounds (death metal, 

heavy metal, alternative, ect...) 

Any thoughts on using the DSM mics for this purpose? 

Thanks for any info. 

Chris G. 

>> 

Hello Chris, 

The DSM-6S/L (low sensitivity) might be an ideal fit for recording exactly this type of sound............ more like you're hearing it at any 

particular positioning....... but as a stereo 2-track. Headworn or dummy head baffle (DSM-GUY and perhaps more practical .... the 

new Lite-GUY...... mounts on standard 5/8" stand or boom...... not shown on the site as yet) mounted DSM mics should prove effective 

and very versatile. 

Using an upgraded portable D100 or M1 Sony DAT is a natural DSM powering and high quality mic preamp (with line outputs) that 

also serves to grab DSM stereo sound samples/live performances outside the studio environment. 



---------------------------------------- 

 

Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 07:37:38 -0700 

Hi - 

I'd like to record jazz combo rehearsals. My goal is to set 

up a single room/ambient mic someplace non-intrusive, attach 

it to a Sony D8 portable DAT, and press record. Of course, 

the sound quality isn't as important as capturing the essence 

of the music for later review - what was swinging, what wasn't, 

why. 

Does anyone have suggestions for a budget mic ($200ish or 

much, much less) that would work for this? I've heard good 

things about AKG C1000s. I tested out the "new" Radio Shack 

boundary mic. The idea of just dropping a mic onto the floor

or taping it to a wall is very appealing. Had it been a $20 

mic, it would have been a done deal. For $60, though, it's 

a bit iffy... 

thanks, 

tim 

-- 

Tim P 

>> 

Although you're looking for cheap and not expressing interest in sound quality, you might consider a few more things if going through 

the trouble of setting up any quick and simple acoustic session recording. 

First, listening to any session tape that doesn't sound like what you've already heard (with out straining at is mostly going to be a very 

'dry' experience.......... not fun....... more like busy work ......... And after a while, interest in recording and listening to most session 

tapes will come to a quick halt........ what's going to be lost is a very valuable and (potentially) enjoyable after/before session activity..... 

.... THE POINT:.......the recordings should sound as good as practical (without any time consuming fussing).......... Jim Keltner (Top 10 

rated studio drummer) once related a Dylan session tape he recorded (as the drummer) by placing the two DSM mic pickups a few feet 

apart................ taped to the wall about midway up............ 

Later,........ when Dylan heard this recording.......... he was said to be most excited as actually hearing what was only attempted with the 

official SASS mic'd version. 

Not only will those involved with any session be more likely to look forward to a bit of session recording listening,... and growing with 

knowing where you've been, .......... it's quite possible to occasionally get a really good take that worth keeping'........!! 

Details on my web site................. Questions always welcome. 

================================================== 

From: jbf 

Subject: mic stands? 

Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 17:13:46 -0500 (EST) 

i'll be going to eastern africa for nine months with dat gear in tow and 

was wondering if anyone had info on a portable mic stand. i'll be using an 

at825, taping in the field, probably with little time for setup and all 

that. something collapsible would be great, and homemade is fine as well 

(i'm trying to cut costs). i'll have a small photo tripod, so if i can 

adapt it to hold a mic, that would be good. thanks, john 

>> 

Hello John, 

You're bound to be not using this system much if in the field....... at least after a short while ...... mic stands of any design are a drag to 

pack, unpack, setup, use, repack, and carry to the next location............... also, the 825 has been used by 100's of my customers (as their 

1st mic) and is now either sold or sitting somewhere collecting dust!........................ I'd suggest a re-think of proper field gear for

practical and performance issues................ over 80 of my DSM customers have trekked Africa (and just about every other jungle'd 

continent) with the DSM's and a portable Sony DAT deck............. check my web site for details listed below.............. this might be the 

only chance for a long time to get the fantastic and rich sounds available in most areas of Africa............ don't go shortsighted into this 

potentially rewarding recording excursion with outdated/not-practical equipment....... 

Sorry about the direct talk here, but you're in for a disappointing time with the way you're going. 

Suggestions.......... Sony Portable D8 or D100 (or M1) DAT deck.............. external 25 hour BC-1 battery system (4 C 

Alkaline).................. DSM-6S/EH or DSM-1/M mics......................... WHB headband windscreen......................... you'll record everything 

you'd expect (and much more) but, with unexpected quality and ease. 



---------------------------------------- 

Hello Dave, 

Many doing these type of documentaries are using the DSM microphones with the WHB windscreen accessory............... and a Sony 

portable DAT...... best current model blows away any of the other portables (including HHB) in recording quality and reliability. 

Reviews in Film & Video Magazine are on the Reviews page on the site listed below along with downloadable .MP3 sounds. 

The DSM mic is a very precision set of matched omni's.......... I suggest the DSM-1S/M for one the quietest omni set available at any 

price........... no audible noise when recording distant birds and using the Sony TCD-D100 or PCM-M1 decks with the internal and 

excellently quiet preamplifiers (and dual 20 bit AKM A/D's).......... 

Questions welcome anytime. 



---------------------------------------- 

 

Hello Antti, 

As you move out of the studio environment and into the real 'ambient' world of sound recording, your choice of microphone AND 

METHOD of using mics becomes quite different.......... a set of precision matched omni mics is a good starting point but, the need to

use the omni set in a specific way is most critical to oveall satisfaction. 

Placing the matched omni set on either side of an acoustical equivalent (read exact equivalent) of the human head (known as HRTF ..... 

head related transfer function) is the only way to record all the ambient information in a 'coherent' manner. 

Using this approach, mic positoning is identical to what you percieve.......... listen with both ears and attention to all the sounds at any 

desired postion.......... choose the postion where the 'acoustic mix' of all elements seems best....... record at that exact postion using the 

matched omni mics mounted on the 'head' baffle for a direct to two track recording of unequalled dimensional perspective. 

The quality aspects are limited by choice of omni mics, the exact acoustical modeling of the baffle, and the position within the ambient 

chosen for mic placement. 

Sonic Studios has specialized in producing the matched omni mics and has available the only totally accurate head baffle for mounting 

our DSM mics (or those of your choice). 

Results with the DSM microphones has been compared with the best orchestral recordings currently produced at Skywalker Sound 

and is being used by the Dallas Symphony Orchestra for occasional tour recording......... many others are using DSM for large choral 

groups with exceptional results. 

Details on my web site listed below. 



---------------------------------------- 

"A bit of knowledge coupled to a great deal of wisdom serves us best" 

 

Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 23:44:47 -0700 

I have my personal "studio" (I'm using that term loosely here) in my 

bedroom, and I'm wondering how to analyze the room, so I can set my EQ 

accordingly. I'm sick of not knowing what my mixes are really sounding 

like until I make a tape! :-) Any hints would be greatly 

appreciated. Thanks! 

Chris 

>> 

Hello Chris, 

You might consider a different mic and method that records sounds exactly lik 

e you hear instead .......... the DSM mics are described on my web site and the review by Corey Greenberg (Audio Mag) is linked there 

for you and gives one of the best overviews of mic and method of using....... Questions welcome anytime. 

There's no practical way to look at your room ....... conditons change every few inches of mic placement........ the DSM mics will record 

exactly what's heard at any particular positioning.... can't do better than that.......... or go out to a different location to expand your

studio into anywhere you like with a portable DAT deck and DSM mics.......... cut a track or an entire album within a unique ambient 

setting. 



---------------------------------------- 

>Subject: Re: What is a good dummy head? 

>From: John > 

>Date:Wed, 15 Jul 1998 22:44:16 +0100 

>Everyone has different-shaped heads, and oddly-shaped ears, so 

>generalising is difficult. One person could have difficulty, whereas 

>another may easily discern the difference between front and rear. I 

>suppose this applies to simulations as well as in real-life. 

>- - - 

>John . email: drop the www., and modify to 'newsrep@' ... 

>www.comp-.uk 

> 

> 

The problem of including the ear shape to model a practical HRTF is indeed because of the personal 'fingerprint' character of 

individualize ear convolutions........ to me, no working generalization of directional cues can include the ear and canal successfully. 

The head...... with its very unique effect on the sound field, can be much more generalized for HRTF modeling...........mostly due to the 

fact that head shape and size variations are much less than practically any other human feature. 

Head width size rarely varies more than .5 inch for the majority of the population. And the ratio of head height to width is also very 

uniform in the population. 

This gives us a much more useful approach to modeling ...... when the just head... minus the ears is considered for response modeling. 

The patent granted me for a method of dimensional recording using just this mechanism has proven very successful in general for 

wide playback mode compatibility with this method, while retaining a high degree of desirable dimensional cues. 

No method of modeling has proven totally realistic in all or most situations when recordings are done following each method. 

The problem is also with the selected method of playback. It would seem that upon choosing a particular model for HRTF, doing a 

method of acoustic recording or synthesis of sound based on this model, the playback method would seem at least as critical as the 

method of producing the sound track........ if near absolute listening reality (with correct and convincing directional cues) during 

playback is to be achieved. 

For me, modeling or using the acoustic HRTF of just the head without the ears gives a the most practical and realistic HRTF.......... and 

allows a practical microphone method that translates well for the most people under the widest playback conditions. 

I've developed an exact acoustic of the head using Sorbothane (see their web site or mine for more info). This special head (DSM- 

GUY) is currently being used by the BOSE Corporations acoustic lab to develop more advanced HRTF modeling and by some

composers to record special acoustic performances in 3-D stereo. 

Using this type of head as a baffle, with very high quality matched set of spaced miniature omni mics (use mine or some suitable other 

brand), will allow an eloquent method of acoustical 3-D stereo recording suitable for ambient field, performance, or studio situations. 



---------------------------------------- 

> 

I have had many customers that have originally purchase this mic ......... the M1 DAT is an excellent deck and is limited only by the 

quality of the input. 

However, Sony single point stereo mics all have common problems of very poor stereo image, rolled off bass (not a bad thing if 

recording the typically bassy Rock/Blues venue), and loudness handling limitations for the louder or loudest type concerts ...... bass 

distortion is audible when this mics 118db-122 db max SPL's are exceeded. 

Suggest you look at my web site listed below for the DSM-6S/x (x is the sensitivity rating and max SPL rating of various models of 

DSM-6) .......... the M1 is either needing a mic powering upgrade for directly powering the DSM ........ or........ use of a PA-6xxx 

powering adapter with or without bass rolloff switch feature. 

Let me know your desired music for recording for exact suggestions on an appropriate system for your requirements. 



---------------------------------------- 

I saw your DSM-9Ms and was interested in finding out more about them...Do they use a battery box like the other DSMs...I would be 

using them to tape rock concerts (thru the PA) using a Sony PCM M1...Also what is the difference between yours and Core Sounds 

HEBs (Also uses DPA4061s) 

Thank you 

>> 

The DSM-9M model is quite suitable for PA'd sounds and has a battery module (it's not really a box at all) with 15 db attenuation and 

45cycle bass rolloff switches........... powered by two 3.6 volt lithium cells for about 350 hours. The differnences in the mic capsule is 

the modification of the basic mic to be neutral without the frequency dips and peaks of the stock capsule as Core sells this set. 

Mounting is also different and most suitable for secure eyeglasses or hat sweatband type mounting........... as you can see in the image. 

Sound quality will be much more natural with the modified set and easier reliable mounting with the Sonic Studios adjustable loops. 

The cost indicates just a little of the extra care put into this special model. 

If only recording PA'd type rock music, the quality aspect of the mic might be reduced to it's overall ability to handle loud sounds 

without strain. The normalized smoother response of the modified DSM-9M capsules may not be such a great advantage to spending 

the extra money for these types of refinements or enhancements to the stock microphone. There is a Jazz recording using this 

modified DSM-9M type set on my web site if you'd like to take a listen to a semi-acoustic venue (it's dixieland type jazz) that's not 

Rock. 



============================== 

Subj: Re: [ProAud] Panasonic capsules 

Date: 9/7/98 

To: pro-audio@pgm.com 

In a message dated 9/7/98 1:20:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time, david@ writes: 

I'm not sure of the response to the lower frequencies with the stock 63/60 

> capsule, but when properly sealed as with my company's DSM mic products, the 

> lower response seems consistent to below 5 cycles! A true pressure mic for 

> sure. 

This also varies from lot to lot. Sometimes even with sealing the rolloff 

starts around 30 Hz, due to variations in crimping (and the resultant air 

leak toward the front). 

>> 

The only word I could get (in 1990?) from the Japanese engineering manager of the 060 production line on differences between the

discontinued 063 and the current 060 capsule, is that the 060 "is a more rational design" ........ whatever that means, but he said the 060 

does use the same FET transistor as was in the 063. 

After testing many thousands of both models, the 060 does seem much more consistent in low end frequency response; probably due to 

a better diaphragm to inside case perimeter seal ....... and/or increased precision on the small pressure equalization mechanism on the 

diaphragm frame. 

The 060 is also much more consistent in overall frequency response. The wideband frequency matching necessary for an ultraprecision 

matched stereo pair has been made a lot easier to find with the newer capsules. This would suggest better overall controls on 

mechanical tolerances. 

On the other hand, the newest 061 capsule, with its lower tensioned diaphragm, currently has looser end tolerance or precision that is 

showing up in a much harder to wideband match capsule. Making the precision match (the DSM-1) product more expensive to 

produce and is priced higher as a result of this (temporary?) lack of OEM capsule production control. 

I've noticed some of the 061 capsules have diaphragms that are so 'floppy,' that they are visually 'NOT stretched flat on the 

diaphragm frame as would be normally expected; some of these capsules have diaphragm tensioning that visibly changes with ambient 

temperature! Maybe this observation was on a few poor runs; time will tell for sure about this. 

This lack of tolerance control is probably just normal for being a very new (and low cost) capsule product that's going through a 

quality control learning curve; seeking a stabile refinement? ....... or less likely, be a basic mechanical design flaw that will never have 

the excellent consistency I now find in the 060. 

Lower noise capsule operation seems to be realized by greatly increasing the self-biased operating current of the internal FET buffer. 



---------------------------------------- 

Subj: Re: [ProAud] Panasonic capsules 

Date: 9/4/98 

To: pro-audio@pgm.com 

CC: boyk@ 

When working as the component Engineering manager of the telecommunications department at Atari Corp in 1981, I had a very 

complete Bruel & Kjaer acoustic acoustic test system for doing measurements on the older models of these capsules (were the WM- 

63A, now replaced by WM-60A). 

The capsules of my (and not Atari's) primary interest were the ones that had the 20-20,000 specifications; back-electrets with thinner 

diaphragms than the general purpose lower cost capsules. Measured with this equipment, the Fr response looked like a strait ruler 

line right to 20,000 (matching the mfg. spec. & graphs), but really extended far beyond the range of the B & K test equipment. 

Earthworks is using these basic capsules and produces mics tested to over 30,000 and 40,000 cycles of measurable bandwidth! They 

are known to use spark-gap measurement methods for transient/hi-frequency measurements. 

I'm not sure of the response to the lower frequencies with the stock 63/60 capsule, but when properly sealed as with my company's 

DSM mic products, the lower response seems consistent to below 5 cycles! A true pressure mic for sure.

New Model WM-61 capsules seem excellent for very high output with low SPL inputs only; mostly good for under 108 db SPL uses 

only. Special gain categories of X, Y, T allow designer considerations on native mic sensitivity. 

Because of the multitude of known and proprietary modifications of acoustic, mechanical, and electrical operating design variations, I 

can understand where Panasonic cannot make the performance specifications very meaningful for the real applications these mics can 

be used for only mundane to exceptional quality instrumentation or recording service. 

Suitability for any stock capsule product is generally determined by the OEM buyer within a particular design or formula of 

application. 

The bottom line with this is that these capsules are not to be considered a finished transducer product; meaningfully specifications are 

reduced to the bare minimum by Panasonic and is missing the needed applications information that's mostly proprietary and not 

made public. 

Panasonic doesn't assume much in performance specifications, leaving the assumptions of suitability to the end user who should know 

enough to apply enough art to make all the necessary technical decisions on suitability and method(s) of implementation. 



=========================== 

> 

Hello Mike, 

Sonic Studios DSM mics work quite differently to the Core Mics and I can't give you the best suggestions from using these myself. 

I would think that Len Moskowitz of Core Sound would be giving the best advice as his personal experience should be better than

almost anyone in respect to input procedure with his product. 

There are so many variables with mics, seating, and loudness of venues, experience with a particular product cannot be 

underestimated in value. 

I've tried to make this much easier with producing a DSM microphone that's matched to work only with the Mic inputs and usually 

with the -20 db atten setting (or Low Sens for D7/8 decks); depending soley on what the recordist's main interests in recording are. 

However, Len's mics may be working so that output is much greater and depending on the CSB mic sensitivity, could use the Line 

input with loud venue recordings. Look to my site for a general description of avoidng overload on Mini-Dat decks (although you may 

already have seen this): http://www.sonicstudios.com/tips.htm/ 

I'm sorry not to be of greater help to you, but if not enough Signal with Line input, go to using Mic input and the -20db attenuation 

settings next. 

Flip a coin to see which setting you want to try 1st, one of these two options is bound to be correct. 



------------------ 

---------------------- 

Subj: Re: MIC and MIC Preamp for classical guitar recording 

Date: 9/13/98 5:47:23 AM Pacific Daylight Time 

From: (Fred ) 

To: guysonic@aol.com (GuySonic) 

I hope you don't my barging in. I've been doing some recordings of string 

quartets using a coincident pair of small cardioids (Neumann KM-184) aimed 

at the back of ensemble from about 6 feet off the floor and 6 feet from the 

front of the ensemble. I feel the results are a little laid back and 

missing much of the punch of the live performance. The Neumans are a little 

colored but not soupy. The mic pre is not soft sounding and the DAT 

recorder is industry standard. I've wondered if the problem was phase 

cancellation. Perhaps I'm just missing some of the room acoustic by using 

cardioids in a situation for which you and others recommend omnis. I'm 

certainly far enough away to avoid proximity effect. Is it not possible to 

do good acoustic string recordings with a stereo pair of cardioid mics or am 

I having a technique problem? Thanks. 

Fred 

>To get the richest, most satisfying sound of any acoustic instrument, you 

>really need to involve a stereo recording technique that replicates how we 

>normally hear acoustic sounds. This is only accomplished easily with using 

two

matched omni mics mounted with a properly designed acoustic HRTF baffle 

between 

>these matched mics. 

> 

>The matched omni Mics themselves must be fairly small in size as not to get 

in 

>their own way of capturing an accurate acoustic. 

>> 

Hello Fred, 

Your questions are welcome anytime. My somewhat busy looking web site gives much information about this in general, some pages 

that might be of interest is at: http://www.sonicstudios.com/multitrk.htm and the reviews on: Sonic Studios Review Page look 

especially at Corey's Audio review for good taping tips. 

Directional mics generally don't have the low frequency response that I think your finding missing from your recordings. Omni's 

response can extend to well below 10 cycles; cardioid's response can start to roll off around 100 cycles, but this varies with the 

directional mic used. 

Your mic position seems OK (assuming a mic moderately close placement in front of the group), but you suspicion of cancellation is 

due to the directional cancellation mechanism at work with the type of mic you're now using. 

With using the method and DSM mic outlined on my site, both the ambient and the low frequency aspects (the punch) now missing in 

your present setup will become available for recording; enhancement with using a HRTF baffle (a person's head, or well designed 

dummy head baffle) is highly suggested to get all the sounds in a coherent manner without danger of 'comb filter' type artifacts typical 

of all spaced omni mic non-baffled methods. 

A quick note on proximity effect. DSM omni mics have none of the frequency emphasis of most other mics so that much closer mic 

placement is possible and suggested to get the best 'sparkle' from all the instruments. Distances of a few feet to about 8 feet is 

recommended and depends on the group stage size and mix of ambient to direct sound desired. 



---------------------------------------- 

http://www.tapetrading.com/ 

"It seems like everyone has something deep to say at the end of their email's, and damn it, i wish i had one too." - me, wes imel 

-------------------- 

>> 

Hello again Wes, 

There are at least two more outfits that do stealthy type mics: The Sound Professionals The Sound Professionals Binaural 

Microphones and HiFiSales Oade Bros . 

These mics are similar in that they most likely start with the very same type of OEM mic capsule from Panasonic and then do 

whatever electrical and mechanical considerations that make their product what it is. 

The difference that sets Sonic Studios apart from the rest is a whole lot of proprietary invention, acoustic engineering, mechanical 

engineering, and rare craftsmanship that go into the DSM product. 

If I charge actual money for the care, extra production steps, and the advantages of an eloquent mic design, the DSM would cost $800 - 

$1200 to show overall value as compared to these others in terms of performance and durability! 

The most important aspect of this to your style of recording is and easier to use microphone with just using the Mic inputs, a smaller 

system with full performance using the direct Sony deck mic power feature, highly engineered accessories, more consistent recording 

results, and being very robust to everyday use with 2 year warranty just in case of a rare problem. 

Just some areas to consider when looking around for reasonable comparisons. 



---------------------------------------- 

mics seem to "sag" in the bass region. Thanks,again! FP 

>> 

Hello FP, 

Smallest Condenser mics tend to be most 'high detail accurate' 

(clean and crisp) and can have extended bass response to below 10 cycles (very full and warm). Earthworks 30K model is reasonable 

and available in matched for stereo sets of two. 

Sonic Studios (my own company) has one of the best choices for recording in direct stereo, the exact full sound of any acoustic 

instrument. The dual matched AND head type baffled DSM omni mics have 7-23,000+ ruler-flat response. Very similar in recording 

quality as the Earthworks but DSM is strictly an ambient 3-D stereo mic and method for most uses. 

Samples of folk and acoustic instrument sounds are downloadable from the site listed below in a high quality .mp3 file type. Please 

give one or two of these a listen.......... the shorter FolkLife festival is a good example of instruments you mentioned. 

The DSM method will allow you opportunity to record anywhere there's a performance (standing within the perimeter of any group or 

directly front-centered) and allow the fullest natural recorded sound of acoustic instruments because it uses a very natural 'what you 

hear is what your record' manner of capturing ambient sounds. 

I wish you the best success and am available for any questions (that's within my knowledge to answer) about the rewarding subject of 

acoustical recording. 


Leonard & Debbie Lombardo 

---------------------------------------- 

> 

I and Earthworks use similar Panasonic OEM capsules 'to start with'. A proprietary formula like that of 'Carroll Shelby'' using stock 

mustangs to make them Cobra mustangs is also applied to the DSM products making a totally different microphone product than was 

originally intended or suggested by the capsule OEM manufacturer. Outstanding recording and user performance over what the 

stock capsules provide is the key to formula success. 

I order specially from the OEM supplier many types of capsules to suite the different end user requirements. 

If you're into experimentation, go to DigiKey Corp for buying the stock Panasonic capsules. 

If you're into just getting the best recording and like the headworn mic method, then consider the DSM product unique, the Original 

and patented non-Binaural mic, and the best value for money spent on this type of microphone system.


Leonard & Debbie Lombardo 

---------------------------------------- 

======================== 

Subj: RAP 2/6/99 Rant/Rave 

Date: 2/6/99 

To: SonicStudios@compuserve.com 

I think the ATM 31s are small diaphragm condensers that are similar to ATM 33Rs 

> and ATM 33a mics, but someone correct me if I'm wrong. If that is the case, you 

> can record the Yamaha with the lid open. There are a zillion ways to record a 

> piano, but what I would do is try x-y over the piano, which usually works. I 

> don't know what kind of music you are doing, but as a general rule of thumb, for 

> more New Agey sort of stuff, get them farther away from the hammers; for certain 

> kinds of classical and rock, get 'em a little closer. However, with a lot of 

> classical, having those mics backed off and to the right of the piano player 

> gives a more natural sound. Use your ear. A lot of people do spaced pairs, 

> choosing to hover the mics over the strings that give it a more dynamic stereo 

> spread. 

> 

> What I personally like doing is opening the lid, but having the mics backed off 

> so that they are outside, and placing the mics at least three feet from the 

> instrument. To my ear, this allows the sound to blend and sound more natural. 

> If you have a really great sounding room, try a spaced pair of omnis. If you 

> don't have access to that, you can try the two Audio Technicas. I like to try 

> both spaced and x-y and see which each result gets. 

> 

> If it's rock piano, it's often heavily compressed to blend in with the rest of 

> the music. In either case, the Audio Technicas are probably pretty bright mics, 

> and I personally find that bright mics frequently help with the piano sound 

> quite a bit. 

> -- 

> Ken/Eleven Shadows, looking for a Super 8 camera and Super 8 projector 

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

> Eleven Shadows * ES songs on Real Audio * Music Reviews * Travels: 

> Peru-Ladakh-Kashmir-India-HK * Tibet * Real Audio Radio Shows 

> http://www.theeleventhhour.com/elevenshadows 

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As Ken stated "there's a zillion ways to mic a piano" for recording purposes. But there are just a few less than a 'zillion' ways to get 

an acceptable 'piano sound'. There are even fewer ways to mic for 'THE sound of a piano'. 

Placing mics using the 'here and there' way, will reliable get that 'piano sound' we've grown accustomed to hearing in popular music 

tracks and there's almost a 'zillion' ways to approach this to get a unique 'piano sound' to fit the any occasion. 

However, If wanting to mic for a realistic 'sound of a piano', the 'here and there' way of mic placement is NOT the way to go, but ANY 

of the stereo microphone methods discussed so far IS A WAY for intention of recording a convincing 'real piano' sound. To succeed 

with this however, presents far fewer ways (choices) of mics and 'using method' and presents a far greater 'skill level' challenge and/or 

being 'very lucky' to consistently get satisfactory results. Far from being impossible, it's at least much more difficult for a number of 

good reasons. 

The intention of recording piano realistically involves a stereo mic method as the output of these is two channels much like our own 

two channel hearing way of hearing sounds. So stereo mics need to record two different perspective that will most satisfy our natural 

hearing sense. 

For us to be convinced of hearing a real piano within a recording, the stereo mic must record sound in a 'unique' way that includes 

'psycho-acoustical' information within the two tracks of recorded audio. While the 'psych-acoustical' information necessary for us to 

hear a convincing sound of a piano is 'unique', the uniqueness of the stereo mic/method of using such, should not be TOO uniquely 

different from our own way of 'uniquely' hearing sounds. 

And here's the rub of the stereo mic methods discussed so far: They can easily be far TOO unique and present only a 'partial set' of 

proper psycho-acoustical cues; often including (free of charge) a whole new unique set of strange (to our normal hearing) sound cues 

that are not 'coherent' or recognized (without doing 'mental' conversion type interpretation work) as part of a real sounding piano. 

The stereo mics discussed so far are unique to each other (including us) in larger or smaller degree with mic placement rather critical 

to each new ambient situation. Because critical placement is often different with each 'type' of stereo mic/method (assuming the same 

ambient working condition), being able to listen yourself for an acceptable 'heard acoustic mix' of instrument and ambient (room, hall, 

etc.) is ALL IMPORTANT. 

However, because of the degree of 'TOO much uniqueness' of each stereo method discussed, just listening will not reliably work unless 

you're (as mentioned earlier) very lucky. What you hear is NOT OFTEN ENOUGH what you'll record with stereo microphones and 

you'll need a lot of experience, luck, and/or time for the 'trial and error' record/playback procedure necessary to avoid 

disappointment from having assumed too much. 

I would be much nicer to learn to quickly hear a microphone position (music + ambient mix), plunk the microphone right there, and 

roll tape (or spin hard drive) and be much more assured of getting what you heard because the stereo microphone is not so unique to 

our own perceptions of sound. 

There's only one stereo microphone 'way' that'll consistently allow the 'what you hear is what you record' assumption regardless of 

situation. That microphone is a 'Head Related Transfer Function' (HRTF) type of stereo microphone that uses a unique baffle 

between two very small, precision matched omni mics. 

This type of stereo microphone is rarely discussed or mentioned (at least here) perhaps because it's TOO much a 'no brain'R'?? 

Not being challenging, needing much skill, being lucky, or having the immense joy of doing multiple tests/retakes makes this type of 

stereo microphone hard to act expert about for sure, and may as such, be generally ignored by the standard knowledge base of

available microphone experts. 

As far as I can tell from being around here for over 5 years, it might just be working too well(!) dampening the joy of endless 

discussion of all the challenging ways 'uniqueness' in microphone 'perception' adds to our pursuit for convincingly real (ambient 

acoustic) recordings (if that's your aim). 

If mic/method solves a lot of previous problems, what will the 'problem solvers' now do? This remains a real 'bureaucratic type' 

challenge and seems worth much discussion of what to do next when 'favorite' discussed problems are threatened to be solved for 

good, making other options less accessible in appearing like good advice. 

Fortunately, I'm here and again helping those who truly desire to make their recording more consistently real acoustically sounding 

with the experience, good advice, and the hardware to back up where my mouth is. As with many expert recordists, microphone 

companies refuse to adopt new microphone designs while the inventor still lives and breaths. If you doubt this, look for finding the 

persons responsible for the classic stereo microphone methods discussed here, (Blumlien, Soundfield, etc.) they've virtually all died 

years before any of these 'now highly discussed' methods were allowed real commercial production/availability or regarded as a mic 

technique worthy of discussion. 

Things being as they are, no need to wait till I'm 'dead and gone' to get THE stereo microphone right now (only lacking any discussion 

of such from those 'teaching' the old standards of recording art), as I'm one of those very rare inventors that is able to produce 

products without the 'recording industry acceptance' due or scheduled sometime after my passing. 

My web site has the necessary details on THE stereo microphone that is very NON-assuming or in most ways non-unique to how we 

hear sounds; what your hear is exactly what you'll record; 'relearning' to trust normal hearing IS going to be tough on the 'old timers' 

used to sticking one finger in an ear between retakes. But while there's still life, learning is possible! 

Please, don't all thank me at once for my dedicated efforts! 

Just go out there and make it sound more real for the old GUY! 

=========================== 

DATHEADS POSTED FROM: 

>> 

From: "Asher .net> 

Subject: Stereo with different brand microphones 

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 00:50:34 -0800 

======= 

I was just wondering how much influence using two different brands of = 

microphones would have upon a stereo recording, especially if they were = 

of similar quality. Would AKGs mix with Neumanns or B&K. I know about = 

waveform matching, but I still wonder. 

= 

>>

Stereo recording is a special type of '2-track recording' that includes number of 'psycho-acoustic' parameters or a.k.a. sound cues 

specific to enhancing the illusion of hearing live spatial sound from a two track recording. 

If the microphones are very unrelated (not very closely matched in several characteristics) then it's very likely to have no more than a 

2-channel approach (not stereo) to sound recording. 

The 2- (or more) microphone channel approach to recording is also called multitrack and is used extensively to produce vocals, drum 

kit, piano tracks where a multitude of different model microphones feed separate mix tracks that are usually mixed to some kind of 

processed 'stereo' product later in post production; these tracks lack any real spatial qualities and are Effects enhanced instead for 

better sounding 'stereo'. However, these synthetically processed stereo recordings mostly still lack much convincing depth of image 

that's more possible with using a true Stereo microphone method. 

A true stereo microphone method of recording needs two (or sometimes more) of the exact same type of microphone for left and right 

channels. While there's often a third slightly different capsule used in single point stereo microphones, this is the exception in the 

stereo microphone group (as far as I can remember) and is a kind of array stereo microphone. The 'single point' is my least favorite 

stereo microphone as the capsules are far too close to each other for truly satisfying stereo. 

Most other stereo microphone methods use just two matched or same model microphones (cardioid, omni, ribbon, etc) positioned in a 

specific manner to replicate some or all the natural sound cues for spatial stereo realism. For live studio instrument to concert 

performance, or event recording, stereo mic methods have very high satisfaction rating. 

Like a few other senses (sight, balance) we tend to like similar pairs of sensing instruments for the sound reception. Using a set of 

microphones positioned along a particular scheme like spaced, pointed at an angle, arrayed, stacked, and (my favorite) HRTF baffled 

allows the recording to more closely reflect our own natural mechanisms for sound reception. The resulting recording is then 

considered stereo. 

Some stereo mic techniques work far better than others, at least in certain situations or with variations to distance and sound stage 

width. In general, stage width and mic distance is more critical when using directional microphones for stereo than if non-directional 

(omni) mics are used. 

The HRTF baffled stereo mic traditionally uses two matched omni mics and is the most accurate to producing a recording that sounds 

almost identical to the live sound because it records an ambient stereo 360 degree surround sound. This is my favorite stereo mic 

method and one I've been involved with refining for many years as is described on my web site. 

Anyway, use matched mic models for recording in a form of stereo. Use the-anything-handy & placed-anywhere-you-feel-like method 

when you want recorded 2- or more channel multitrack that has no relatable stereo content. 

Regards in Sound & Music Recording, 

Leonard (& Debbie) Lombardo 

---------------------------------------- 

I'm currently shopping for a pair of mics to be used primarily for stereo 

recording. Ideally I would like to get a matched pair but in my price 

range ($800 or less for the pair) there doesn't seem to be many choices. 

In the same price range I can find a non-matched pair of mics that have a 

better frequency response than a matched pair of a different mic. To make 

matters worse, some manufacturers claim that their quality control is 

consistent enough that 2 mics of the same model will get "good results" 

when used as a stereo pair. 

>> 

Matched Pressure type omni type mics when used with a HRTF baffle records some of the most gorgeous and detailed stereo you'll 

have the pleasure to hear. 

A full bandwidth and exact "mirror image" left/right channel precision match is something close to "state of the Art" for most mic 

manufacturers to offer and very difficult to near impossible to achieve with directional or cardioid types of the mics due to complex 

directional producing wave cancellation mechanisms within the capsule and the mic body that have normal tolerance variations. 

Without the exact match, whatever stereo image is obtained is less than consistent and gives hard to predict imaging ability. 

If quality stereo recording imaging and bandwidth is important to you, there are very few affordable and just a few more very 

expensive mic systems that satisfy most or most all of the time under a wide variation of live settings. 

One of the best and most affordable of these is the Head Related Transfer Function (HRTF) baffled system that uses dual precision 

matched omni mics designed (& Patented) specially for this purpose by my company (Sonic Studios). 

The Dimensional Stereo Mic (DSM-tm) is a 360 degree full surround mic system that is also Dolby Pro Logic decoder compatible. The 

stereo imaging of DSM-6S mics is very smooth (continuous) and frequency stable over a range of 5-25,000 cycles and have the most 

precision guaranteed match (

Pressure Level equivalent) . Knowing this allows to determine if a mic has enough or too much electrical signal output for a particular 

recorder mic/line or external preamplifier input. 

Sonic Studios DSM mics are available in 8 sensitivity ranges (see the chart @ http://www.sonicstudios.com/dsm.htm ) to both avoid 

deck input overloads while also having adequate signal for any particular range of sound/music recording requirements. 



---------------------------------------- 

In a message dated 11/22/99 1:41:17 PM Pacific Standard Time, DAT-heads-Request@datheads.phish.net writes: 

manufacturers to offer and very difficult to near impossible to achieve with directional or cardioid types of the mics due to complex 

directional producing wave cancellation mechanisms within the capsule and the mic body that have normal tolerance variations. 

Without the exact match, whatever stereo image is obtained is less than consistent and gives hard to predict imaging ability. 

If quality stereo recording is important to you, there are just a few affordable and a few more very expensive mic systems that satisfy 

most or most all of the time under a wide variation of live settings. 

One of the best and most affordable of these is the Head Related Transfer Function (HRTF) baffled system that uses dual precision 

matched omni mics designed specially for this purpose by my company (Sonic Studios). 

The Dimensional Stereo Mic (DSM) is a 360 degree full surround mic system that is also Dolby Pro Logic decoder compatible. The 

stereo imaging of DSM-6S mics is very smooth (continuous) and frequency stable over a range of 5-25,000 cycles and have the most 

precision guaranteed match (

How much is the microphone set ? 

Me,I often go to rock concert, 

for example Rolling stones,Aerosmith,Eric Clapton..... 

I go to rock festival outside,too. 

Which microphone do you recommend me ? 

And which microphone do "rock fans" use ? 

Please advise me. 

Thank you. 

-- 

YANAGISAWA .ac.jp 

>> 

Hello Takashi, 

Thank you for expressing interest in the DSM microphone system and for including details of your Music interests and DAT 

equipment. 

The DSM-6S/L ($450) and PA-6LC3B ($200) combination has been very successful for recording current Rock concert venues in 

Japan. This system would cost total of $675 US Dollars that includes the US Postal International Express Shipping. 

If you would like to order this, simple way is to send Japan International Postal Money Order for $675 US payable to Sonic Studios via 

1st Class International Air mail to: 


1311 Sunny Court 

Sutherlin, Oregon 97479 USA 

Please include your Shipping Address and Telephone or Message Phone number. I will send everything as a personal "gift" to allow 

for best process time and economy. 

Mic models suited to your music or sound recording tastes are listed at: http://www.sonicstudios.com/dsm.htm 

Powering & bass filter considerations are discussed at: http://www.sonicstudios.com/pa_x.htm 

General Ordering information is at: http://www.sonicstudios.com/ordering.htm 



---------------------------------------- 

What is the best single-point stereo microphone less than $400. It must NOT 

require phantom power--or any strange, difficult to obtain battery. 

The best recommendation I've received so far is the Sony ECM-999. If you have 

an alternate choice, please let me know. 

Good bass performance is mandatory. This mike will be used for pipe organ 

recording. 

Thanks a bunch, 

Norm , Seattle WA 

>> 

Hello Norm, 

Your post for a reasonable way to record the full bandwidth of a pipe organ in stereo is best done with two full pressure type omni 

microphones. 

None of the single point microphones, ribbon microphones, or any of the other types posted as suggestions will work out for at least 

lack of pressure type bass response regardless of what the posts claim and for other just as important stereo imaging requirements. 

However, using these two (pressure type) omni microphones 

spaced out in some manner is not enough for recording the spatial ambient sound in stereo that's also very important for making a 

satisfying large size acoustic instrument recording. 

A baffle needs be used placed between the two mics for the ambient stereo aspect to also be recorded faithfully. 

Jecklin Disk type baffles are OK and far better than NO Baffling, but lack some important (HRTF) features for consistent results. 

My site listed below has tips, reviews, mics, baffles, and sample sounds of pipe organ recorded with Sonic Studios (my own company) 

DSM designed mic systems. 

Suggested mic model: DSM-6S/H (headworn or using the LiteGUY HRTF Baffle) 

Some URL's to view: 

http://www.sonicstudios.com/mp3.htm (see St. James Cathedral, Seattle recording) 

http://www.sonicstudios.com/liteguy.htm 

http://www.sonicstudios.com/reviews.htm 



E-mail me with questions and about your current recording deck/preamplifier equipment for best system fit suggestions

. 



---------------------------------------- 

http://www.sonicstudios.com/mp3.htm 




General Ordering information is at: http://www.sonicstudios.com/ordering.htm 



---------------------------------------- 

DSM-6S/EH or /H models are suggested either headworn or with the HRTF GUY or LiteGUY mounting baffle. 



---------------------------------------- 

^ 

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ 

Share what you know. Learn what you don't. 

>> 

An ambient stereo microphone method seems to be the most satisfying for Pipe Organ as the entire building is part of the sound and 

it's best to record this with a coherent spatial mic method such as the DSM featured on my site. 

The DSM-6S/H microphone model is suggested. The Lite-GUY baffle is also suggested. The MD-MS722 miniDISC or PCM-M1 DAT 

portables are excellent for this purpose. 

Download St. James Cathedral.mp3 (Short) clip for a unique recording music perspective in a very large ambient. 

Questions are always welcome. 



----------------------------------------

My site has 'too high a quality for streaming' but file downloadable .mp3 encoded sound/music selections recorded with a HRTF 

baffled omni mic method I pioneered/patented in the mid 80's and now offer as product on my site via Mail Order. 

These are stereo 'psychoacoustical' recordings that are NOT binaural, but are naturally 3-D Stereo encoded and Dolby 'pro logic' 

decodeable for full surround speaker playback. 

Headphone listening with full 'outside the head perceived' ambient is only fully accomplished using headphones like Sony's MDR-F1 

with drivers 'floating in space' forward of the ears and angled to firing back into the ears. These are the only 'stock' phones that seem 

to give seamless surround sound with none of the hard left/right and weak middle sounds common with all other headphone designs. 

Sony has a few other models with similar designs, but these are rather cheap and found to be not very good for critical listening of 

details. 

While the MDR-F1 is not the ideal phone for binaural (where closed or in-ear inserted types might be far more suited, it now seems the 

perfect phone for recordings made with the DSM microphone method and perhaps those made with the Soundfield mic (although I 

haven't tried listening to any Soundfield recordings to check out the performance as yet). 

I have searched and am continually searching for very high quality headphones that meet professional monitoring requirements of 

ambient stereo recordings. So far, the Jecklin 'Float-Phone' electrostatic and the even better imaging Sony MDR-F1 remain the only 

phones found suitable for this purpose. 

I'm considering stocking this Sony phone as this particular model is not easy to find elsewhere. Those interested please E-mail with

"MDR-F1" in the subject line for news of availability. 



======================== 

eception. Without the HRTF reception ability, the recorded sounds loose coherency and the our ability to hear them clearly upon 

playback as we did live. The many sounds and reflections of those sounds within normal rooms makes the using of a coherent 

microphone method essential for getting consistently useful and 'natural listening' stereo recordings. 

A very, very few ambient stereo microphones, while not replicating very much of the HRTF mechanism, do indeed accomplish 

ambient stereo in a more or less successful manner. The Soundfield mic is an excellent quality microphone for recording a live sound 

in normally encountered ambient spaces, but it's quite large, not easy to use, and very, very expensive. 

The Crown SASS line of microphones are far more practical in being not quite as large (or effective), but a small fraction of the 

Soundfield cost and are generally far easier to use. 

Both these mentioned microphones do not replicate the needed HRTF reception mechanism and require a microphone stand with 

fairly good room placement or positioning. The main drawback to these two choices (if cost, ease of use, size, and need to set up a mic 

stand in a good position is not discouraging) is they do not record ambient stereo in a "coherent enough" manner or exactly replicate 

in recordings as we would hear sound; also, their performance is not very consistent depending on many factors that're best left to the 

experienced amatuers-professionals to figure out a way to get the most from these type mics. 

SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM: My company's HRTF baffled or (in your case) 'personally headworn stereo microphone' solves all 

the HRTF reception, cost, need for a stand, and ease of use shortcomings found in any of the other choices for ambient stereo 

recording. Low cost, personally worn, and most consistent performance are just some of the features many professionals and 

amateurs are now enjoying with DSM ambient stereo microphones. It just couldn't be any easier or simpler to record exactly what 

you're hearing live. 

See my web site for a most informative experience of this microphone, it's present uses and users, magazine reviews, model 

specifications, and EFX/Music/Nature DSM recorded .MP3 sound clip files. 

NEXT is your choice of deck. Portable DAT or MD are a natural choice as they are affordable (MD is downright cheap to buy) and 

they have the needed mic preamplifiers included; home AC powered decks now rarely have mic preamplifiers included since most 

people stopped doing their own recordings some time ago. 

Two Suggested Models: 

DAT .............. Sony PCM-M1 ..... records up to 6 hours (in low quality stereo, but good for speech) per tape/lithium battery (disposable 

type) ....... moderately expensive to buy ($700-$800), but tape media is the lowest. 

MiniDisc ............ Sharp MD-MS722 ........ uncommon for having full 'real time' manual recording level set operation ..... Robust slot 

loading design ..... 74 minutes stereo per disc/ 11 hours recording per Lithium rechargeable + external (1) AA battery ........... cheap to 

buy, but medial cost is up to 5 times that of DAT tape for the same (speech) recording time 

Call or E-Mail me with additional questions. 



---------------------------------------- 

Subject: Concert Recording

From: Kirby xxxxxxx @my-deja.com> 

Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 17:32:15 GMT 

I have a concert recording job coming up in February. Although my previous jobs have obviously been well received since I'm getting 

repeat business, I am not personally satisfied with one aspect of them -- Audio. The concert will be filmed in a large, acoustically 

pleasant, church. 

To get the best audio possible I have previously made arrangements to plug one of my cameras directly into the sound board. This 

gives me crystal clear sound along with a video image to aid in syncing with my other two cameras. The problem is that it doesn't give 

me much in the way of crowd noise (applause, laughs, etc..) and also doesn't impart the ambiance of the venue. In other words, it 

results in a sound that is almost studio like. I can handle adding some echo and such to the sound in post to give it more of a live feel, 

but have problem adding in crowd sounds. 

I have the following equipment at my disposal: 

A) 1 Canon XL1 

B) 2 Sony TRV103 Digial8 

C) 1 4 Channel Radio Shack Mixer 

D) 1 Sharp Portable MiniDisc Recorder 

E) DVRaptor w/ Media Studio Pro and Premiere w/ 60 GIG RAID 

I have considered buying some of the Core Sound cardioid mics and mixing them in with the stage mics. They would have to be placed 

near/in the crowd somewhere, but that probably wouldn't be a problem. I could also not plug into the sound board at all and just use 

the cardioid mics. I'm really not certain. 

For the shoot I will have one of the TRVs on basically a static wide shot somewhere in the back center of the crowd. The XL1 will 

handle most of the concert close up work with the other TRV getting coverage shots of the crowd. 

One of the thoughts I had is to make several independent recordings and figure out which is the best in post; or possibly try to mix to 

recordings in post to get the best result. With MSP or Premiere I wouldn't have much trouble mixing different audio sources. This 

would mean maybe using the cardioids and the minidisc to make 1 recording and plugging one of the TRVs into the sound board for 

another. All of the mics on the cameras will be hot (unless one is plugged into the sound board), but only to aid syncing them in post. 

The camera mics, even with the sound isolator on the XL1 make for not so good recordings. I don't know about mixing the minidisc 

recording and the sound board recording though, and whether I can keep the two in sync. I also worry about the two recordings 

canceling each other out. 

I'm willing to spend another $400 or so filling out my equipment, and the Core mics were just an idea. Anyone have any ideas on how 

to get the best recording possible that can be edited into the video? 

------- Kirby Axxxxxxx >> 

Cardioids are inherently wrong for getting ambiance for obvious technical reasons, they're directional with awful sounding side 

rejection. Matched Dual omnis are the type of mics to have, but just spacing these out on a t-bar raised to some height is not enough to 

capture surround ambients in a coherent manner and the spaced pickups will have audible comb-filter effects that most often get in

the way big--time. 

The need to record a natural sounding ambient that will hold up in post leads to the use of the HRTF baffled omni microphone method 

that uses the dual matched omni mics mounted on a special acoustic baffle that's modeled to our own head's acoustic responses to the 

acoustic surround ambient. This is really the kind of mic system you want to capture all of the live feel of any scene. 

There's a discussion of this type of microphone and method on my web site along with many models of very precision matched omni 

and the mic stand/boom mountable LiteGUY HRTF baffle. 

URLS: http://www.sonicstudios.com/multitrk.htm 

http://www.sonicstudios.com/dsm.htm 


http://www.sonicstudios.com/videomic.htm#faq 

Many small record labels are using the LiteGUY baffle mounted DSM mics to easily produce very high quality CD releases from DAT 

tape of live performances. 

Your application for this type of stereo mic extends beyond just this one live music event to anytime you want to document a clear 

surround-sound ambient to go along with any video or film production. 

Core sound mics can work well for some Rock concert type work but not as well for non-PA'd acoustic (mic noise) scenes. Also, they 

do not work well with the decks mic power and mostly require the use of external 'battery box' and occasional use of line level inputs 

to keep from mic amplifier overloads to get acceptable results. 

Your Sharp MD is perfect for use with any suitable DSM model (likely DSM-6S/M) and will be directly powered to full performance 

by the "plug-in-power" feature provided by Sharp on ALL their MD portables. 

Experience is often the best teacher (with a little help from your friends here) and every job presents the opportunity for challenge to 

expand your knowledge, required equipment inventory, and the overall ability for meeting each job's minimum professional 

requirements. 



GuySonic@aol.com Specializing in Patented HRTF Surround Sound Recording Gear 

absorptive baffle device (our head). This creates an interference acoustic pressure field pattern (analogy like shadow, moire, and 

rainbow effects all at the same time) that our brain translates into directional and dimensional information. 

This is the workings of psycho-acoustics where extremely complex holographical type information is 1st sensed and then processed by 

our genetically trained brain. A little more about this at: http://www.sonicstudios.com/multitrk.htm 

We don't as yet have computational ability and skills to do this kind of processing in real time and our HRTF working models are 

mostly too simplified for consistent synthesis in making or decoding this kind of information especially for multiple sources common in 

real ambient environments. 

Because we hear sounds in a general manner because of genetics, we actually want to hear recorded sounds mic'd in a similar 'preprocessed 

manner.' Unfortunately, we now automatically make big concessions with hearing any kind of recorded material because of 

the way the industry has NOT progressed to better understanding of recording methods for virtual reality purposes. Can't really 

blame them, keeping everybody beating around the techno 'proverbial' bush sells lots of shoes and cold drinks. 

Anyway, now you got me going! Let me know if I actually answered your question Richard. 

Cardioids are really useful for MONO multi-track with side -rear rejection ability that reduces vocal to PA & stage monitor feedback 

and reduces interferring adjacent multitracked instrument sounds when close mic'ing methods are used on stage and for studio session 

work. They are mostly problem solving microphones that greatly sacrifice acoustic fidelity to avoid potential off 

axis problems. Using them for stereo purposes has never worked very well; mostly very inconsistant in how schemes using such mics 

record a situation in stereo. 

For recording live events where acoustic quality or fidelity and a true feeling of 'being there' is important, you really don't want to use 

anything but a HRTF baffled omni microphone type system. 

Regards in Sound & Music Recording, Leonard Lombardo 

Subject: Re: Concert Recording >From: Kirby A@my-deja.com> >Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 02:25:09 GMT 

> >I have no doubt that everything you say is true, but the mics and baffle you suggest would be way too expensive. I may have to go 

with a different mic (non-cardioid), but can't afford the omnis. > >Kirby 

The most costly element for baffled omni mic system is the HRTF baffle. Replicating the acoustic response of water saturated tissue is 

no easy accomplishment and the raw material costs for the LiteGUY are impressive. 

However, there is a far less costly way that may be suitable for this your present project. Usually, using a baffle is a must when 

working close proximity to noisy and talkative crowds common at popular music venues these days. You need to get at least 8- 10 feet 

up and away from this crowd noise to get a good overall ambient mix. 

In your situation, the audience may be more respectful and allow someone seated (or standing) to record just as good an ambient 

sound from somewhere within the close stage to half back into the hall. This person would know how use the Sharp MD deck and 

personally headwear the mics (this is a real HRTF baffle). 

Head position should be facing stage forward with no looking left-right head turns, at least while recording; up-down head-mic

motions to check the deck's VU are not usually noticeable. Quiet clothing (cotton is best) and wearing no loose, noisy jewelry is highly 

recommended. Keeping people directly adjacent from audibly talking, rustling paper programs, making squeaky chair noises, and 

jingling jewelry items is a matter of luck and timing, or planning on having a buffer of people 'in the know' around the mic position to 

keep the peace. 

Getting some buffer distance from close-up audience noise is your best friend in most these situations. 

Obviously, using a HRTF baffle on a tripod stand up 8-15 feet in the air makes the most sense in the long run. This where mic position 

for best ambient mix while not being in the way of anything important are the only considerations for getting a good ambient sound. 

Regards in Sound & Music Recording, Leonard Lombardo 

Subject: Re: Concert Recording "Martian Wxx" writes: Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 13:50:13 GMT 

He he he ............ I tell ya what if i have to tape another concert with his darn Tree mic stand in the middle of the screen sticking 

out like a sore thumb, i am gonna SCREAM!!! 

GuySonic Reply: Views of any microphone has always been a logistical problem when dealing with live audience, Video/live TV 

broadcast, and Film productions where the line of site is best kept unobstructed. The live line-of-site audience situation may allow a 

little more flexibility in that ambient microphone position well above most seated views is usually not difficult to implement and 

moderate distances from even a head-sized all pitch-black colored HRTF mic baffle make this blend well from spectator views that 

might partially include it. 

A little known fact is the HRTF baffled mic need NOT be directly positioned stage center to get excellent results because of the way it 

works with the entire ambient and not just a portion. Acceptable mic positions that work well are those within one-third (total span of 

hall width distance) from the side walls. Best to keep the stage front-to-hall-back (or balcony) distance within the 50% to one-third 

from the actual edge of the sound stage. Closer to the stage is also OK, but you start to need to bring the mic position much closer to 

being centered with being close-in to the stage; best position is often a mix of hall acoustics and PA speaker (if any are used) dependent 

and what (if any) views-of-the-mic are deemed acceptable to the audience and certain video angles that may include it. 

-------- 

truly there are two types of concerts and two types of recordings 

that which is a concert (101 piece instrument) and that which is a noisy rock band so that wasn't to well defined in this thread, as 

somebody's mics would crumble in the latter situation somehow i don't think you have to worry about somones jewlery being audible 

at a stones concert or for that matter even someone yelling for a medic :-) 

------ 

GuySonic Reply: The 'sensitivity' rating (sound pressure to electrical output factor) of a suitable microphone and maximum SPL 

(sound pressure handling ability before the Mic's electrical signal distorts) are two definite considerations when choosing a suitable 

microphone. Sensitivity rating is an especially important factor when using most battery powered DAT/MD portables and Camcorder 

mic inputs as these are the first to overload; usually well before the mic itself reaches its maximum SPL. 

This is one of the main reasons there's DSM mic models spanning 8 sensitivity ranges. This is important for having optimum mic-deck 

SYSTEM performance that's guaranteed for particular 'ranges' of recording requirements. Having the most versatile 'single' DSM or 

any microphone model is often a choice of knowing the likely loudest requirement and choosing this model appropriate to work with a 

particular recording SYSTEM.

That 'mic system' MAY ALSO include having at least one bass rolloff filter frequency (a.k.a., Hi-Pass and LoCut) at your disposal for 

gracefully handling that 'Stones' type job or an On-the-street-Interview session where all that motor vehicle rumble captured is 

(especially if using a pressure type omni like DSM), competing with the intelligibility of softly spoken conversation. 

The bass filter becomes a good friend in situations like this by enhancing any deck's voltage input headroom and digitization 

'resolution' of higher frequency signals when working with very bassy music sounds AND ALSO very useful for reducing industrial 

rumbling sounds present in all urban ambiance these days. It's good to realize that All directional microphones available have 

inherently poor low frequency bass response, typically start the rolloff from 125 -175 cycles; (how would you like headphones like 

this!?!) but the directional mic manufacturers always claim operation 'bandwidth' to much lower like 40-70 cycles .......... maybe, but 

most can sound quite thin specially with acoustic orchestra, but this same directional mics that lack real-low frequency ability is 

somewhat a benefit for keeping ROCK/POP venue recording more manageable, at least from the mic preamp's perspective, if not also 

for end-product's overall tonal balance on normal playback systems. 

One of the unrealized advantages to using Cardioid and Shotgun mic for urban close range and on-on-the-spot interview work is not 

only the attenuation characteristic for 'off-axis' sounds at all frequencies, it's also for the 'ON-AXIS' reduction of very low frequency 

sounds that happens with-or-without additional Lo-Cut in place. 

Choosing mic sensitivity and a table of mic models for any particular range of applications are at: 

http://www.sonicstudios.com/dsm.htm Tips on 'Avoiding mic/line input overload distortion' on DAT/MD portables is discussed at: 

http://www.sonicstudios.com/tips.htm 

----- 

and the two types of recordings that which is precisely recorded to be played back on dat or cd with headphones and represents the 

actual highs and lows of the volume of a real concert and has apropriate stereo seperation for ONE THING, a pair of headphones. 

and that which plays back on 3" stereo speakers on the average home television requires compression to sound ANYTHING like it did 

in the building and so the poor consumer doesnt go from not being able to hear it above the fan in thier heater, to having it so LOUD 

that they cant hear themselves think. and having an Excess of stereo seperation so we can hear any seperation at all, when it comes out 

of the average telvision speakers 2 feet away from each other. 

AND THE TWO OF THEM WILL NEVER MEET :-) 

You know i was hired to do this stuff for classic concerts videotape and of course i was told to NOT ADJUST THE AUDIO ok well that 

may be fine for the CD which we made but it does not work for the video 

Does anybody know WHY because be they omni or uni or short shotgun MICS do not pick up the same way as the human ear I dont 

care if you payed $7000 for them it is not the same. 

in the seat at the concert i can hear the slightest tink of the Triangle i am oblivious to the sounds of the people coughing and gasping 

around me when the cymbals Clash in thier thunderous roar i dont run out of the theatre holding my ears screaming in pain but an 

unadjusted mic and 5-100w of amplification just doesnt work that way the low volume times are way too low and you cant hear 

enough 

and the high volume times are much louder than they sounded there it does NOT sound like it did when your there in a seat in the 

audience and unless you wish to mic every instrument and spend the next 50 years mixing them perfectally it isnt ever going to.

I will gladly admit that this $7000 mics system on the tree in the center 9 miles in the air was the most perfect cleanest beautifull sound 

that i have ever heard reproduced, as long as you had the $500 headphones on, and it stayed in perfect uncompressed digital format. 

but it is not the majority that would ever listen to it that way. and it has little to Nothing to do with VIDEO 

------ 

GuySonic Reply: There are two issues I can see raised here. One is the notable 'different-from-what-we-actually-heard' 

microphone recording characteristic, and the live recording dynamic (soft to loud) range that may be inappropriate for the final 

product's non-audiophile purpose. 

Appropriate choice of microphone and methodology is at the heart of making recordings of EXACTLY WHAT YOU CAN 

ACTUALLY HEAR, or conversely, RECORDING ONLY WHAT YOU WANT TO HEAR at any chosen place and to sound like you 

intended when reproduced on whatever range of playback equipment deemed likely for the final product. 

DSM HRTF made recordings have more proven ability, more than any other microphone/method, of doing the latter most 

consistently. These recordings are now used extensively for live sound recordings in media products meant for on all the types of 

commonly used headphone/loudspeaker playback systems without inherent need of any special 'make-it-compatible-for-playback' 

decoding or post processing. 

Mastering done in post-production is responsible for making any recording's dynamics more "accessible" for the target audience 

that's known to have a certain range of playback equipment limitations and soft, loud, directly seated, or for wallpaper only listening 

type preferences. 

I have to admit that in my younger (and most naive) days, I considered the use of audio compression in HiFi media an evil thing. But 

back then I had no close neighbors to disturb and my speaker systems got to be 4500 watt RMS horsepower rated Tri-Amp'd systems 

to cleanly produce 125 dB SPL down to 25 cycles and 115 dB SPL at 15 cycles! I live in more humble (and hopefully wiser) times now 

within a small city neighborhood and find myself mostly listening to mastered recordings on a variety of the very same low 

power/small speaker systems in common use by the majority. This being the case now, I have a lot to say in favor of tasteful 

employment of dynamic compression techniques (like those featured in Syntrillium's Cool Edit Pro) to make the mastered audio much 

more "accessible" to a wider audience under those same real-world situations mentioned. 

The heaviest compression personally used here was recently of an impromptu acoustic campfire seated group of vocal, ukulele, and 

tabula version "How'd you like to spend Christmas on Christmas island?" The performance was actually quite OK, but the HRTF mic 

positioning was impossible; the ensemble's instruments were way too distantly spread for having close to a half-good dynamic mix. 

Everything was way off, but I resisted throwing this in the garbage (because I very much liked the whimsical nature of the tune's 

lyrics+ ukellele+ tabla) and tried a very radical amount of finely tuned compression that made every musical element take about 4 

steps forward and stand together in a most unexpected natural sounding way. This worked out so well that I've made two short sample 

clips of before and after the dynamic compression; mostly to share my amazement of what is possible with a good performance that 

has a terrible loud-soft mix of elements. This "merit of using compression example" will be on the site within a month as there'll be 

more storage and bandwidth about then. 

------ 

>Subject: Re: Concert Recording From: "Martian W xxxxxxxx@hotmail.com Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 11:05:49 GMT 

>so what your saying is its kind of a duel piazio with a dampened base how about a flat plate that mounted on a mic stand then a layer 

of silicoln that is minature eggcrated about 3/8 of an inch of silicoln to get that wet dampening and to finish it press a tight eggcrate

pattern into the top 1/4 let it dry, place two elements on and you have a stereo dampened piazio which could be 1/5th as wide as the 

head pattern yet would still be side to side stereo seperated like the head pattern but require 1/5 the visual existance and would pack in 

a goody bag ............. ahh always finding a "different" way > 

o----------------------- 

\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\\/\/\/\/\/\\/\ 

>======================== 

/\/\/\/\/\///\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ 

o---------------------- 

>ok i am patenting this right now :-) 

>by the way what do you NAME your head ??? ............. is it bubba ? 

......................... 

Any baffle is better than no baffle with dual omni. 

Now with that said, if you make it different from what's needed for true HRTF response, then the mic will operate differently, and the 

recording will always sound differently and have unpredictable variations with different types of playback systems. 

The experience with the Jecklin disc and derivatives (which seems very similar to yours BTW), is proven not consistent and throws all 

sorts of unexpected curves on how the recording will actually come out sounding like; sometimes it can work out sounding quite nicely, 

but mostly not like you actually heard it and it can often be too far off from reality to be easily usable for prime-time. 

That's the problem with different mics and methods, we already have a lot of 'different,' but there's always room for more to keep all 

but the most experienced recordist successful, at least most of the time even if it takes the additional advantage of post tools and the 

time and experience to make 'different' sound at least OK. 

In contrast, using 'different' by the non-expert with minimum post tools and time means that LUCK is THE prime factor in getting 

good sounding recordings. 

QUESTION IS: 'Do You Feel Real Lucky? .... DO YA? ..... had enough 'different yet?! ... have ya? ...... 

Anyway, the point is, if not really sure or really lucky, then I know you'd do far better with a proven true HRTF mic for at least 

recording consistently what you are naturally hearing at any particular location when that's your goal. 

Bottom Line: Different from what's heard live is too often times NOT BETTER by most people's sensible measure of hearing 

What's on Sonic Studios Web Site (HINT: Click Photos/Underlined Text) 

DAT, MiniDISC, VideoCamcorder Surround Stereo Microphones & Reviews 

HOME PAGE

LAPEL 

MIC 

Stereo Mics for MiniDISC, DAT, 

Camcorder, Studio Session 

HRTF Baffle 

For 

Recording 3- 

D Surround 

Stereo with 

Conventional 

Top/Bottom 

5/8" threaded 

Mounting 

Mic Stand, 

Fishpole, 

Studio Boom, 

and Semi- 

Permanent 

Ceiling Fixtures 

Mic Powering & Bass Cut 

Filters 

HRTF Session 

Sample MP3 

CLIP 

STOPS Wind 

Blast Noise 

for Interview, 

Narration, 

Lecture 

Recording Accessory & A/V Gear Maintenance Page 

MIC Reviews 

Page 

Video 

Camcorder 

Surround-Sound 

Stereo Microphones 

Systems 

Attenuation & Patch Cables for DAT & 

Camcorder Analog Inputs / Outputs 

ProGold G100 & DeoxIT D5 

Connection Enhancement, Cleaning 

Kits

ADVANCED BATTERY 

POWERED PORTABLE DSM 

MIC PREAMPLIFIER 

Mini-Stereo to Standard 

Dual Mono & Mono Mic 

XLR-Phono Adapters 

DAT Cleaning Cassettes 

Portable DAT & MiniDISC Decks, Equipment Reviews, and Long Runtime DAT Battery Systems 

Sony DAT Review 

TCD-D100 & PCM-M1 

BC-1C & BD-1C 25-60 Hour Battery For 

D100 & M1 DAT 

Sony MDR-F1, MDR- 

CD2000 

Headphones 

Review 

DAT BATTERY 

Power Systems 

PAGE 

MD-MT20 

Pro-style 

MiniDISC 

For Music, 

Ambient, EFX 

Sony TCD-D7/D8 

Mini-Review 

Opcode 

DATport USB 

Audio 

SoundCard 

REVIEW PAGE 

Sharp MD-MS722 MiniDISC 

Deck Specifications Page 

Recording Tips, Tapers Tips, DAT & MiniDISC Users Tips, MultiTrack Tips

Avoiding Input Distortion 

DAT Deck 

Tips 

User Battery Tips Mini-Connector Tips Live Tapers Tips 

3-D Multi-Track Studio 

Method 

FAQ SECTION 

FAQ Contents Page 

Types of Mics 

vs. DSM FAQ 

DAT Deck Powering FAQ 

CORE HEB/DPA-4060 vs. DSM 

FAQ 

DSM User Feedback & 

FAQ 

Choosing the Correct DSM 

Model FAQ 

Choosing The 

Best Deck FAQ 

Recording Tips 

FAQ 


Customer Profile List 

+ WWW Links 

About Sonic Studios 

MAIL 

ORDERING 

MP3 EFX, Nature Ambient, Live & Session Music Clips 

Send E-Mail to: 

GuySonic@aol.com 

AVOID E-MAIL DELETION IN THESE 

PERILOUS TIMES: Please Include An 

Appropriate "Subject Heading" In All E-Mail 

Correspondence 

Call or Fax 

TEL: 541-459- 

8839 

FAX: 541-459- 

8842 

Call USA Free 

1-877-347-6642 

LINKS

Downloadable - Sonic Studios

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?