Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!midway!linac!uwm.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!info-high-audio-request
From: jas@proteon.com (John A. Shriver)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
Subject: Re: 3 mikes/3 tracks
Message-ID: <7333@uwm.edu>
Date: 31 Oct 90 13:57:41 GMT
Sender: news@uwm.edu
Lines: 46
Approved: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Originator: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

Another argument in favor of intensity miking over directional,
especially with 1950's microphones, is that the omnidirectional
microphones were much flatter and less colored.  The off-axis response
of a cardiod or figure-8 microphone might not be all that flat.  I
guess one could also argue that an omni mike is less complicated, and
might be less distorted (like the triode/pentode issue in power
tubes).  I don't know how much this argument holds with today's mikes.

Mercury did separate mono and stereo miking setups from 1955 to about
1962.  They note as much on the older album covers.  The stereo tape
mixed as mono would not have anywhere near the right level of
reverberant information.  Since they recorded about 80 stereo sessions
before they could sell any stereo LP's, they certainly would want the
mono records to be at their best.  (I don't think the stereo 7-1/2 ips
tapes provided any signifigant revenue, although the 1/2 track ones
are sonically stunning.)  Thus they recorded separate mono masters, so
the mono would be at its best, since only it provided immediate
income.

They also used separate mono setups becuase they did not initially
have enough 201 microphones to record mono and stereo simultaneously
(including a spare 201).  Thus, they used a 201 for the mono, and
KM-56's for stereo.  Anyone who wants to hear how important the
microphone is can compare some of the monos to the early stereos.  The
best examples I can think of are Kodaly's Hary Janos Suite
(MG50132/SR90132 & CD) and Bartok's Violin Concerto
(MG50134[?]/SR90003).  (If you have the stereo, the mono should be
easy to find.)  In both of these recordings, only the mono tape used
the 201 mike.  The differences are enormous, the 201 mike is much more
immediate and clear.  The stereo Hary Janos is still good enough to
compete, but I'd argue that the mono Bartok is clearly the better
recording.

The mono records were also cut with a less fragile disk cutter, and
are cut louder and more dynamic.  The last drum roll at the end of the
mono Hary Janos is a cartridge-buster!  However, in later stereo
materings the sound of the stereo cutter improved, a RFR-1 mastering
of Hary Janos is brighter and more dynamic than a FR-3 mastering.

Collecting all the mono Mercuries is a new challenge for the
compulsive who already has a complete set of the stereo ones.  They
are much cheaper.  Before the CD's they were the only affordable
alternative.  I have bought monos for $3.99 to listen to the
performance and music, the better to judge how much I was willing to
pay for a stereo.  This allowed me to know I wasn't missing much
(musically) when I passed on the stereo "Fiesta in Hi-Fi" for $125.