Recording Methods and Fidelity

[NOMBEDES]

Infra is why I still have my AR 3a speakers!!! $400 for the pair, take that, Wilson!!

 

 

Outdoors is an anechoic space. My guess would be birds were edited out.

 

You can see positioning in this picture during the concert. Obviously there were only 2 positions with 4 musicians. If they had access to a Regen and sub-picosecond timing Audiophiles would hear the lack of front to back depth in the soundstage so clearly.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]22752[/ATTACH]

 

"During one of the earliest AR live-vs.-recorded concerts at Carnegie Recital Hall, Leonard Sorkin, first-violin, took a show of hands midway through the concert, asking the audience if they could detect the switchovers between live and recorded music through the AR-3 speakers. A show of hands indicated that several listeners in the audience thought they could detect the differences. "I'm sorry to tell you this, but except for the first two bars of music, the entire piece was played back through the AR-3 loudspeakers." This put an end to conjecture and guessing. "

 

[cookiemarenco]

Dear Cookie,

 

I don't know how or why Blue Coast Records was brought into the other thread.

I had never heard of BCR but after looking at the photos in your website (and before listening to the samples) I compared the recording methods depicted in the photos with those used by PlayClassics which have been described as follows:

 

 

 

As I have mentioned previously, I did not meant to imply that you were not doing a good job with your technical options, only that by using single pair of mics, reasonably distanced, direct to A/DC with no further post-processing PlayClassics are able produce a more "natural" or "realistic" perspective (which is something that you are probably not even aiming at).

 

As a listener I defend that un-amplified music, particularly "classical", should be recorded from a "documental" perspective in such manner as to recreate as much as possible what one would listen from the audience (less leave the front/back seat discussion aside for the time being).

Your methods were compared to those of PlayClassics in this particular context.

I listened to your samples and think that they sound very good (even if a bit too close for my taste).

 

Since I don't have any experience with either digital or analogue EQ'ing and mixing, it would be interesting if you could provide a sample (if you have one around, I'm sure you're a busy person) to illustrate your opinion.

 

Kind regards,

Ricardo

 

Thank you for the explanation.

 

I was a fan of ECM recordings and worked as a producer for Windham Hill in the late 80's (the golden years, I like to call those years). It's a sonic style I enjoy. I'm not suggesting my way is the right way, just saying that I like the sound. Even when I've recorded classical music in a bigger hall, I've used multiple mics for close and distant capturing of sound.

 

I enjoyed reading about Mario's recording technique. I agree that sometimes a smaller chamber is a better option, particularly when people are in the room to dampen some of the reflections (if reflections are a problem).

 

There is an interesting recording of Paul Horn in the Taj Mahal on Downloads NOW. It's not the best recording (done in 1968 and apparently the recorders were smuggled in) but gives an amazing sound of the ambience from the room. He followed it with a two album set from the Pyramids (also on Downloads NOW) where he plays the flute in various pyramids. You can really sense the dimensions of the rooms in those recordings.

Paul Horn

 

Next year we will be offering classes at the studio for those interested in learning more and comparing analog, PCM and DSD. To adequately compare analog vs digital is best done in the control room. Digital is convenient. Analog is a pain in the.. but it sounds amazing.

 

Happy Holidays!

 

Cookie Marenco

Blue Coast Records.

[semente]

Hi Ricardo

 

You are correct about multi micing used in the BFO recordings, but at the low levels employed, there's nothing "artificial" in the resulting sound. It's used to more accurately replicate what the ear/brain perceives from an ideal audience position, which if mic'ed from that position, would be awash in reverberation.

 

The majority of Channel Classics recordings are medium to small ensembles, all recorded in DSD, with a minimum number of microphones necessary for surround sound mixed and balanced to stereo. The stereo balance and mix are performed in an analog mixing desk prior to recording. Spot microphones are occasionally used as required at low levels to add the feeling of presence and "feel" to featured instruments, and/or to soloists.

 

The BFO recordings are a completely different breed. The microphone array selection and positions are largely from the Philips recording experience, from which Producer Hein Dekker draws. Again, as in small ensemble, the microphone mix and balance are preformed in analog prior to recording. But as in any large orchestra recording, particularly in an empty concert hall, the space is so large and masses so great, it's not possible to use simple puristic mic techniques for a commercially acceptable recording.

 

To demonstrate this point, nativedsd.com will soon offer free clips from the recent Mahler 7 BFO recording project performed with two different microphone sets, but same placement (the three very tall stands at the stage edge, being the primary front three of the ITU surround array. One clip will be the raw session analog mix and balance of the array you see in the mentioned video. The other will be a 5 mic array, using DPA 4041's as opposed to the much flatter response co mounted DPA 4006's, used for the commercial release. The difference is very obvious, and most appreciated in surround sound, for which the 5.0 array was intended.

 

The point of this demonstration is to show the pluses and minuses of puristic verses multiple microphone techniques in large orchestra recording.

 

Hi,

 

It would be interesting to listen to those samples but in my case they'd have to be provided in two-channel PCM.

I've never really felt attracted by Mahler's music but I have bought the 2nd by Fischer/BFO and also the Inbal/FRSO cycle recorded by Denon with a very simple mic setup (I don't have the boxes with me to describe this more precisely) which in my opinion sounds quite "natural".

 

I am used to listening to live FM broadcasts of orchestral music; these performances are generally captured by a single pair of mics hanging from the canopy and I find that the resulting sound is reasonably similar to what I hear in live (sonic perspective, detail, timbre).

Spot-mic'ing might help create more exciting recordings, full of "airiness" and "detail", but it doesn't sound "natural" to me.

And the use of many mics requires a lot of post-processing, like EQ and mixing, which affects the purity of the signal (and probably create phase-related problems as well).

 

You say that "it's not possible to use simple puristic mic techniques for a commercially acceptable recording".

What do you mean by commercially acceptable?

Labels like BIS now, and Dorian or Pro-Arte in the past, (and I'm sure a few more) are/were able to produce excellent recordings using simple mic techniques (which could go as far as 2+2 and the odd spot).

And would you still feel the need to use spot mic'ing (for all sections) if you were to produce two-channel recordings?

Or, in other words, is this mic complexity a necessity because you are producing surround recordings?

 

Best,

Ricardo

[francisleung]

Hi esldude,

The AR speakers demo in Carnegie Recital Hall.

In my view AR intentionally tricked the audience for their own commercial purpose. If I read it correctly the test was that the quartet played only two bars from the start and then pretended to play on (I guess) and let the audience listen to a recording through AR speakers. Midway through the concert, the first violin asked the audience if they were able to detect the switchover. It should be noted that the audience had barely settled down when the first two bars were played live, say, for 10 seconds and were then listening to the AR speakers for the rest of the time, say, 7 minutes. The test result was hardly anyone being able to point out the switchover correctly and AR's conclusion was that their speakers sounded as good as or their reproduced sound was indistinguishable from live music.

A fairer test in my view would be for the piece being played: the quartet for 2 minutes, AR speakers for 2, quartet 1 and AR speakers 1. I believe many amongst the audience would have been able to detect the switchovers correctly.

[Sal1950]

 

David Manleys ViTaL Recordings. The original CD's are IMHO still some of the finest sounding recordings ever done. I treasure my copies.

RIP David.

manley recordings

[kumakuma]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]22756[/ATTACH]

 

David Manleys ViTaL Recordings. The original CD's are IMHO still some of the finest sounding recordings ever done. I treasure my copies.

RIP David.

manley recordings

 

I would be remiss if I didn't mention that the article you linked to was written by Teresa who is active on this forum.

[esldude]

Hi esldude,

The AR speakers demo in Carnegie Recital Hall.

In my view AR intentionally tricked the audience for their own commercial purpose. If I read it correctly the test was that the quartet played only two bars from the start and then pretended to play on (I guess) and let the audience listen to a recording through AR speakers. Midway through the concert, the first violin asked the audience if they were able to detect the switchover. It should be noted that the audience had barely settled down when the first two bars were played live, say, for 10 seconds and were then listening to the AR speakers for the rest of the time, say, 7 minutes. The test result was hardly anyone being able to point out the switchover correctly and AR's conclusion was that their speakers sounded as good as or their reproduced sound was indistinguishable from live music.

A fairer test in my view would be for the piece being played: the quartet for 2 minutes, AR speakers for 2, quartet 1 and AR speakers 1. I believe many amongst the audience would have been able to detect the switchovers correctly.

 

The AR demo was done 75 times in many places. It wasn't always done as two bars and that was it. One of the key points was asking the audience if they heard the switchovers. Some number indicated they did hear the switchovers. When after the first one no such swithovers occurred. Admittedly it wasn't a perfect test, and it was commercial. There are a number of stories by those who heard those demos and were fooled. Funny how when they don't know something has changed many audiophiles are 'fooled', but report hearing things that beggar belief and credibility in the physical properties of sound. I believe many such things are like the switchovers heard by people when there was only one switchover.

[gmgraves]

I had never heard of Blue Coast Records until Jud mentioned them in the PlayClassics test files to compare file formats[/thread]

 

My curiosity was piqued, I visited their website in search for information on their recording techniques and made a few comments based on the images available at the website...

 

 

 

In the meantime I registered at the website and after waiting 24 hours for the confirmation link email I requested a new one only to find that the original message had ended up in the Spam folder...

 

I have just downloaded two files from a flamenco session, a very fortunate coincidence for this will allow me to compare BCR Cookie Marenco's recording techniques with those of Mario's from PlayClassics, and the Jane Selkye (vocals & accordion) with Chris Kee (cello) recording.

 

http://bluecoastrecords.com/free-downloads

 

I'm planning to listen to all files tonight.

 

R

 

The best that can be said of Cookie's recordings (I have several of them) is that they are VERY clean and technically quite good. Unfortunately, they do not produce an accurate "sound-stage" because she uses the classic multi-mike technique for miking solo performers and small ensembles. The vocalist has a MONO microphone to sing into, and if he/she is playing a guitar, the guitar has a MONO mike as well. If there are other musicians involved, they too are mono miked with each mike occupying a separate channel on the mixer. The musicians are then grouped, usually, into three groups using "pan-pots" and are deployed in "the mix" as left, center, and right. This is the way pop and jazz and folk recordings have been made for decades. It works, and while it does not sound real (in the pictures posted above, I cannot fine ONE stereo mike or stereo pair. Do any of you see any thing resembling a stereo pickup?), it is a familiar sound to most listeners, and I really can't fault her for using it (at least she doesn't place multiple microphones INSIDE pianos, resulting in pianos as big as the room with the bass notes coming from the left side of the room, middle-C coming from the center of the room and the piano's treble notes coming from the right side of the room [i hate that]!). I wouldn't record like she does, but Cookie is, after all, creating a commercial product, and by using standard practices CAREFULLY, she gets a commercial product that sounds several cuts above the norm. For that, I have to admire her perfectionism.

[gmgraves]

I would be remiss if I didn't mention that the article you linked to was written by Teresa who is active on this forum.

 

 

That Manley is a TRUE stereo microphone and a real treasure. You can't get much better than that. I have one myself (different make, though) and I use it for every recording I make (sometimes with subordinate "accent" mikes and sometimes without).

 

[Sal1950]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]22756[/ATTACH]

 

David Manleys ViTaL Recordings. The original CD's are IMHO still some of the finest sounding recordings ever done. I treasure my copies.

RIP David.

manley recordings

 

I would be remiss if I didn't mention that the article you linked to was written by Teresa who is active on this forum.

Yep, I was also remiss in not mentioning that fact.

I think its revealing that it's still the recording method as much as anything that is the determining factor in the how "real" any particular session sounds. David's 25+ year old Pure Tube minimalist recording chain to Redbook CD couldn't be more different than all the high tech being praised so today but IMHO there's noting being done that surpasses it for a "being there" sound. To bad none of my tastes in music lends it self to this manner of recording.

[esldude]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]22757[/ATTACH]

 

That Manley is a TRUE stereo microphone and a real treasure. You can't get much better than that. I have one myself (different make, though) and I use it for every recording I make (sometimes with subordinate "accent" mikes and sometimes without).

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]22758[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]22759[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]22760[/ATTACH]

 

George when I saw the Manly stereo mic, I wished I had one, and thought of the Avantone you have. You are gonna make me spend money on one if you keep posting about it.

 

I currently use a pair of CAD M179's mounted as close together as possible for the same effect. They work very well, but it sure would be nice if CAD made a stereo version like the Avantone.

[Sal1950]

The AR demo was done 75 times in many places. It wasn't always done as two bars and that was it. One of the key points was asking the audience if they heard the switchovers. Some number indicated they did hear the switchovers. When after the first one no such swithovers occurred. Admittedly it wasn't a perfect test, and it was commercial. There are a number of stories by those who heard those demos and were fooled. Funny how when they don't know something has changed many audiophiles are 'fooled', but report hearing things that beggar belief and credibility in the physical properties of sound. I believe many such things are like the switchovers heard by people when there was only one switchover.

 

It was either Paul Klispch or J Gordon Holt who used to be fond of quoting the fact that when you walk out of the house and one of your neighbors is playing an instrument live, or a band is practicing in the garage, immediately your ears perk up and you just KNOW it's real live sound.

I have never had that happen and fool me with either an in room demo or someone playing a HiFi inside the house. Why?

You'd think it would be easy to capture the sound on one guy playing a electric guitar and then reproduce it accurately enough to fool someone. Just a single electronic instrument, should be easy right?

NOT Why What are we missing?

[francisleung]

Thank you esldude for elaborating further on the AR demos; 75 times in different places.

Quite a bit of cost but with good advertising effect I would say. Wonder why no loudspeaker manufacturers conduct similar demos now.

[tailspn]

What do you mean by commercially acceptable?

 

Commercially acceptable to me means a recording destined for sale to a broad customer base of diverse music and sound quality tastes, as opposed to a recording made by an individual/group for a specific interest. For a large orchestra recording, especially a session recording in a hired concert hall as opposed to recording a live audience attended regulated scheduled concert, this usually involves a considerable investment. A major symphony recording (with or without a soloist) typically costs around $100,000. With the label receiving around $7 gross from each recording sale, you can understand classical music recording is not a profit motivated business. This is one of the reasons you see a large number of microphones deployed, whether actually in the mix or not; safety!

 

And would you still feel the need to use spot mic'ing (for all sections) if you were to produce two-channel recordings?

 

Yes, of course. You are correct that a single mic array, regardless of type, gives the most accurate spacial image. Any added mics outside of the principle array, due to their placement distance relative to the principal array and the instrument or group, then subtract from that spacial accuracy. So the mastering art is to mix as needed those spot mics at such a reduced level so as to add definition of the instruments/groups (the attack), without subtracting from the spaciousness provided by the principle array. Also, all microphones are tracked at their full level for safety, and post processing mastering options if required.

 

Ricardo, I know you understand, but to some, there's the confusion of acoustic music recording in a space, where the space is as important as the instruments, and multi mono studio recording where the instrument placement and space are manufactured.

 

Or, in other words, is this mic complexity a necessity because you are producing surround recordings?

 

No, it applies equally to either a stereo or surround recording. Actually, there are no significant label produced acoustic classical music recordings mic'ed exclusively for stereo; they're all either mixed down to stereo, or have a stereo pair in addition to the ITU array. Labels need to provide as many delivery options as possible over the life of the recording, so to reduce as much as possible the financial losses.

[semente]

Thanks for writing such a comprehensive description your work.

 

Even though I can easily imagine the difficulties of recording the sound of orchestral music I had never thought or read about the practical or financial sides of it.

It must be even harder now with several orchestras recording and selling their own work and doing so with comparatively much lower costs...

 

 

I understand the importance of capturing the initial attack of the notes but I feel that this often done at the expense of "realism"; in such cases the direct sound becomes more predominant than what one hears from the audience and the mechanical noises that result from the operation of the instruments start to "creep" in.

I have also been led to believe that increasing the proximity of the microphones to the instruments accentuates the top octaves but I have no way of verifying that assumption for lack of hands-on experimenting.

 

 

If you have the time it would be interesting to know a bit about how the mix-down to stereo is achieved.

 

Best regards,

Ricardo

[esldude]

Thank you esldude for elaborating further on the AR demos; 75 times in different places.

Quite a bit of cost but with good advertising effect I would say. Wonder why no loudspeaker manufacturers conduct similar demos now.

 

I can in no way give a definitive answer to that. Mostly I would say marketing is different now. There are many more ways to market and they deliver more return for investment. Pretty much a simple matter of efficiency in marketing.

[esldude]

It was either Paul Klispch or J Gordon Holt who used to be fond of quoting the fact that when you walk out of the house and one of your neighbors is playing an instrument live, or a band is practicing in the garage, immediately your ears perk up and you just KNOW it's real live sound.

I have never had that happen and fool me with either an in room demo or someone playing a HiFi inside the house. Why?

You'd think it would be easy to capture the sound on one guy playing a electric guitar and then reproduce it accurately enough to fool someone. Just a single electronic instrument, should be easy right?

NOT Why What are we missing?

 

I had it happen to me once. I went to friend's house who asked me to come by after work. He had fallen asleep, left his door open, and his Maggie 2.0 speakers driven by a G.A.S. amp, AR pre, and Teac FM tuner were playing a local public radio station. It was broadcasting a solo piano concert. Walking onto his porch it sounded like a real grand piano. Standing just outside of his door it sounded real. Stepping just inside it became good hifi not real. Step outside, it sounded real. I listened several minutes on his porch before closing his door and leaving. It sounded real all the way back to the sidewalk.

 

A few years back a lady came to my door representing a local charity. I excused myself to retrieve my check book. I had some chamber music playing over my Quad ESL63 speakers. When I returned she had entered several steps and was listening to the music. My return startled her, and she was very embarrassed and apologetic. However, she repeated several times how the music sounded so real from outside, so beautiful she couldn't help herself.

 

So it can happen. Not with regularity and predictability. The biggest impediment is less than 1% of the recordings due to how they are made have the chance to mimic real no matter how good the playback system.

[semente]

Thank you for the explanation.

 

I was a fan of ECM recordings and worked as a producer for Windham Hill in the late 80's (the golden years, I like to call those years). It's a sonic style I enjoy. I'm not suggesting my way is the right way, just saying that I like the sound. Even when I've recorded classical music in a bigger hall, I've used multiple mics for close and distant capturing of sound.

 

I enjoyed reading about Mario's recording technique. I agree that sometimes a smaller chamber is a better option, particularly when people are in the room to dampen some of the reflections (if reflections are a problem).

 

There is an interesting recording of Paul Horn in the Taj Mahal on Downloads NOW. It's not the best recording (done in 1968 and apparently the recorders were smuggled in) but gives an amazing sound of the ambience from the room. He followed it with a two album set from the Pyramids (also on Downloads NOW) where he plays the flute in various pyramids. You can really sense the dimensions of the rooms in those recordings.

Paul Horn

 

Next year we will be offering classes at the studio for those interested in learning more and comparing analog, PCM and DSD. To adequately compare analog vs digital is best done in the control room. Digital is convenient. Analog is a pain in the.. but it sounds amazing.

 

Happy Holidays!

 

Cookie Marenco

Blue Coast Records.

 

 

Hi Cookie,

 

I would be interested in attending one of your workshops if you ever decide to offer one this side of the pond.

 

I know that DSD does not allow any editing but it would be very educational to experience the sonic differences between post-processing in analogue and digital.

 

Best,

Ricardo

[gmgraves]

George when I saw the Manly stereo mic, I wished I had one, and thought of the Avantone you have. You are gonna make me spend money on one if you keep posting about it.

 

I currently use a pair of CAD M179's mounted as close together as possible for the same effect. They work very well, but it sure would be nice if CAD made a stereo version like the Avantone.

 

Well, you won't go wrong with the Avantone CK-40. I've sonically compared mine to a REAL Telefunken ELA-M-270 (of which the Avantoone is a virtual copy). The Avantone is better in almost every way than the legendary Telefunken. First off, the M-270 is tubed and the CK-40 is all FET and as a result, the Avantone is much more quiet. Secondly, the CK-40 has gold-sputtered Mylar diaphragms, and the M-270 has acid-etched brass diaphragms. This reduced mass results in a smaller high-frequency peak, that has it's main resonance at a much higher frequency. The Mylar is also faster than the brass (again, less mass). Also, it's extended, and smoother frequency response makes the Avantone much better suited for today's digital recording methods, especially at 24-bit LPCM sampling rates or using DSD.

 

Now, The Avantone is not as well made as the Telefunken, but it's more than good enough. A vintage, used ELA-M-270 will set you back more than US$15K - if you can find one for sale. Now, a "new" company calling itself "Telefunken USA" is making copies of the some of the old Telefunken mikes again (They advertise that they are "hand assembled" in Connecticut, but they don't say where the parts are manufactured), and the ELA-M-270 stereo mike is one of them (although they now call it the AR-70). I don't know anything about it and my comments only apply to the originals made in Germany in the 1950's). This "continuation" of the ELA-M-270 is also more than US$3,000!!

 

PS: I found the garish red of the Avantone a little too conspicuous on-stage, so I stripped the brass barrel with paint stripper, and re-sprayed it a very light gray color. I did refill all the etched markings on the barrel with black enamel, so they could still be read. It looks much better now, but more importantly, it doesn't draw attention to itself on stage any more!

[gmgraves]

It was either Paul Klispch or J Gordon Holt who used to be fond of quoting the fact that when you walk out of the house and one of your neighbors is playing an instrument live, or a band is practicing in the garage, immediately your ears perk up and you just KNOW it's real live sound.

I have never had that happen and fool me with either an in room demo or someone playing a HiFi inside the house. Why?

You'd think it would be easy to capture the sound on one guy playing a electric guitar and then reproduce it accurately enough to fool someone. Just a single electronic instrument, should be easy right?

NOT Why What are we missing?

 

 

I have had this happen to me many times. I'd be walking down the street and pass some night-spot. The door would open, for somebody exiting or entering the place, and instantly my ears would pick up the music emanating from within, and I would immediately think to myself: "There's live music playing in there!" Walking down Bourbon Street in Naw'lins, you pass night-spot after night-spot, and few of them have actual doors (more like fan-fold shutters that can close-up the entire front of the place when they need to do so.) I've done this a number of times when in town, As I stroll down Bourbon, I think: This one has canned music, this one live, this one live, canned again, live, etc., etc., etc. And I've never been fooled. There is something about live, acoustic music that no sound system can come even close to mimicking no matter how sophisticated or expensive. This is the reason why If I go into a concert hall and see sound reenforcement equipment anywhere about the stage area, I turn right around and walk back to the box office and demand my money back. I can listen to better speakers than those on the stage in my own home and probably able to play better performances of the works being played that day as well. I go to concerts to hear real, un-amplified acoustic instruments playing in real space, not listen to somebody's sound reinforcement system!

[gmgraves]

I can in no way give a definitive answer to that. Mostly I would say marketing is different now. There are many more ways to market and they deliver more return for investment. Pretty much a simple matter of efficiency in marketing.

 

 

Back in 1963, AR had a showroom on Broadway in NYC. Three times a day, they put on a live vs recorded demonstration using their then flagship speakers, the AR3ax. They were using live musicians (a quartet; violin, viola, cello, and bass viol). Both the speakers and the musicians were behind a scrim, which the attendants assured us was acoustically transparent, if not visually so. They would start the demo and apparently, the musicians would lift their bows from their instruments while a hidden tape recorder continued playing the same piece through the speakers. People in the audience were certain that they couldn't hear where the musicians stopped playing and the speakers took-up. But I could. Every time. Reason? Everybody else in the room were guys in their thirties and older. I was 16-17 or thereabouts. I could easily hear the tape-hiss that nobody else, apparently, noticed. But to this day, I remain impressed by how close they got the sound of the recording, played through the AR3ax speakers to sound like the live musicians. Of course I realized that they carefully chose the music and the instruments playing it (I noticed there were no trumpets), but still it was impressive. Later, of course, they recorded both the musicians and the speakers playing the same work outside in order to get an anechoic recording but also to eliminate the difference between the recorded (tape hiss) and live (no tape hiss) and also it was obviously cheaper to hire a quartet once, make a recording of them, and then the "live-vs-recorded" demo could be performed anywhere with just a pair of speakers! I never heard one of these later demos, but seems to me that because when you were hearing the ARs (as opposed to the recorded musicians), you were listening to a recording of a recording, that this would be disadvantageous to the speakers, but apparently not.

[gmgraves]

Well, you won't go wrong with the Avantone CK-40. I've sonically compared mine to a REAL Telefunken ELA-M-270 (of which the Avantoone is a virtual copy). The Avantone is better in almost every way than the legendary Telefunken. First off, the M-270 is tubed and the CK-40 is all FET and as a result, the Avantone is much more quiet. Secondly, the CK-40 has gold-sputtered Mylar diaphragms, and the M-270 has acid-etched brass diaphragms. This reduced mass results in a smaller high-frequency peak, that has it's main resonance at a much higher frequency. The Mylar is also faster than the brass (again, less mass). Also, it's extended, and smoother frequency response makes the Avantone much better suited for today's digital recording methods, especially at 24-bit LPCM sampling rates or using DSD.

 

Now, The Avantone is not as well made as the Telefunken, but it's more than good enough. A vintage, used ELA-M-270 will set you back more than US$15K - if you can find one for sale. Now, a "new" company calling itself "Telefunken USA" is making copies of the some of the old Telefunken mikes again (They advertise that they are "hand assembled" in Connecticut, but they don't say where the parts are manufactured), and the ELA-M-270 stereo mike is one of them (although they now call it the AR-70). I don't know anything about it and my comments only apply to the originals made in Germany in the 1950's). This "continuation" of the ELA-M-270 is also more than US$3,000!!

 

PS: I found the garish red of the Avantone a little too conspicuous on-stage, so I stripped the brass barrel with paint stripper, and re-sprayed it a very light gray color. I did refill all the etched markings on the barrel with black enamel, so they could still be read. It looks much better now, but more importantly, it doesn't draw attention to itself on stage any more!

 

 

Mea culpa! the Telefunken USA AR-70 is THIRTY thousand dollars, not THREE thousand. I left out a zero, it seems!

[wwaldmanfan]

Back in 1963, AR had a showroom on Broadway in NYC. Three times a day, they put on a live vs recorded demonstration using their then flagship speakers, the AR3ax.

 

I had a pair of 1961 AR-2a's that I inherited from my dad along with the H.H. Scott 299c amp (my avatar). Good hifi gear at the time. I used that stuff for decades. Mapleshade Audio in Baltimore offers restored and souped-up versions of these amps, which is interesting. if I still had it, I'd be temped to send it to them for a rebuild, but I sold it years ago.

[esldude]

Well, you won't go wrong with the Avantone CK-40. I've sonically compared mine to a REAL Telefunken ELA-M-270 (of which the Avantoone is a virtual copy). The Avantone is better in almost every way than the legendary Telefunken. First off, the M-270 is tubed and the CK-40 is all FET and as a result, the Avantone is much more quiet. Secondly, the CK-40 has gold-sputtered Mylar diaphragms, and the M-270 has acid-etched brass diaphragms. This reduced mass results in a smaller high-frequency peak, that has it's main resonance at a much higher frequency. The Mylar is also faster than the brass (again, less mass). Also, it's extended, and smoother frequency response makes the Avantone much better suited for today's digital recording methods, especially at 24-bit LPCM sampling rates or using DSD.

 

Now, The Avantone is not as well made as the Telefunken, but it's more than good enough. A vintage, used ELA-M-270 will set you back more than US$15K - if you can find one for sale. Now, a "new" company calling itself "Telefunken USA" is making copies of the some of the old Telefunken mikes again (They advertise that they are "hand assembled" in Connecticut, but they don't say where the parts are manufactured), and the ELA-M-270 stereo mike is one of them (although they now call it the AR-70). I don't know anything about it and my comments only apply to the originals made in Germany in the 1950's). This "continuation" of the ELA-M-270 is also more than US$3,000!!

 

PS: I found the garish red of the Avantone a little too conspicuous on-stage, so I stripped the brass barrel with paint stripper, and re-sprayed it a very light gray color. I did refill all the etched markings on the barrel with black enamel, so they could still be read. It looks much better now, but more importantly, it doesn't draw attention to itself on stage any more!

 

George,

 

You really aren't helping me not spend money on this.

 

I likely will get one in time. Seems too useful and by all accounts works very well.

 

On the price of the modern production, yikes, zeroes matter. $30k, wow, would like to hear a performance of the ck40 and the $30k mic done concurrently.

[gmgraves]

I had a pair of 1961 AR-2a's that I inherited from my dad along with the H.H. Scott 299c amp (my avatar). Good hifi gear at the time. I used that stuff for decades. Mapleshade Audio in Baltimore offers restored and souped-up versions of these amps, which is interesting. if I still had it, I'd be temped to send it to them for a rebuild, but I sold it years ago.

 

Scott amps were fine, well made tube amplifiers, and a restored one probably is as good as any similar powered tube amp today. Where H. H. Scott really shone was it's FM tuners. A Scott 4310 was better in almost every way than the much more famous Marantz 10B. After all it was the 4310 over the 10B that WQXR chose for the relay monitor of their ad hoc, east coast "QXR Network".