Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!shafter-emh2.army.mil!aprm!gd
From: aprm!gd@shafter-emh2.army.mil
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
Subject: Re: (very) Unconventional Speakers
Message-ID: <2757@uwm.edu>
Date: 5 Mar 90 14:17:23 GMT
Sender: news@uwm.edu
Lines: 27
Approved: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

I used to do a lot of recording, live performances of orchestras,
chamber music, jazz, ethnic, just about anything except R&R.  I've
always felt it strange that purists sweat blood over miniscule
differences in their equipment's performance when what goes into a
recording is so so much a result of the mikes used, their layout, and the
sound of the room.  Not to mention the quality of the piano and how it
was prepared, or how good the tenor sax's reed was that day, or how good
the orchestra's playing was.

I never understood why most setups start with condensor mikes with
built-in preamps only to have the signal held down to be compatible with
mixers designed more for dynamic mikes.  There the signal is boosted
again.  Why not go all the way to line levels at the mike? I used to go
through hell to get a clean signal from a 600 foot snake that had to
carry a signal at a few millivolts.  (Actually, someone did it, but as
far as I know it never caught on.)

Now that digital is commonplace, why not go digital at the mike? 
Anybody doing that?  Like, how about a laserbeam bounced off a diaphram
similar to that of a condensor mike?  Some super-duper surface that
reacts consistantly (linearly) to frequencies between 10 and 30K HZ,
100dB dynamic range, an uncolored rendering of the sounds coming in. 
Perhaps a diaphram isn't the answer.

Just food for thought...

  -gd