The current coronavirus situation seems to have sparked a sudden interest in recording equipment, for example, by musicians wanting to communicate with others or give lessons etc.
I have been looking into this for some time - completely unrelated to the virus - which has come as a considerable surprise.
I only just realised the nature of some of the beasts - microphones, that is. Way back I had some electret microphones (Philips) for use with tape decks. I thought they were pretty good at the time. I think they've now gone to microphone heaven. Condenser microphones were always thought to be better - and it seems still are - though some electrets are quite good.
Electrets are what you'll find in phones, computers, probably those Alexa units, etc. The main reason is that they are mass produced and now very cheap.
Way back some microphones had big jack plugs, but many cheap ones now use small 3.5mm jacks.
There are also dynamic microphones - often used for solo work, or vocals, and now - in the last few years - for podcasting. These are usually mono - though some stereo mics may be available.
Studio mics have been different, and often use a pro connector - XLR. These can be linked to an audio interface by fairly long cables, which as I understand it, are often balanced - so that cable runs can be longer - as they are relatively immune from interference. My understanding of the balanced cables is that if they are placed anywhere near any sources of electrical interference, this should cancel out because of the 3 wire configuration.
Way back in the past, recording and mixing was done in analogue mode, so microphones would be connected with low noise amplifiers to feed into the recording chain.
Some while back, both in the pro and consumer markets, digital mics - such as USB mics appeared. I didn't even bother to think how these work until very recently - though I've had some - currently a Zoom H2n. These microphones have an inbuilt DAC to feed into a USB interface. The quality from a USB mic can be good, but it will depend on both the actual microphone units themseleves, and the DACs used - and to a limited extent also to the USB connection (IMO).
Some mics are also radio mics. In the distant past these could have been analogue radio communications, but now it will be digital. Radio mics have the advantages of not needing trailing wires, but they may introduce other problems, or other problems may emerge when using digital mics. Some digital mics don't work too well for podcasting because the computer (or phones, or other kit) interfere with the communications - either internal or external.
The requirements for podcasting - which seems popular now - and may be more so in the current circumstances - are for clear sound pickup, with low microphone noise, and good rejection of off axis sounds. There isn't necessaily any point in using a stereo mic for this application, and I think few people do that.
On the other hand, for music, many people must surely prefer stereo or surround sound, so may be tempted by microphones such as the Zoom range - or some Sony models. If the aim is to record a concert, then some of these devices have internal memory or record to memory cards, and they are switched on and left, and the recording is retrieved later on and fed back into computer storage. However, that approach doesn't necessarily work if the levels aren't set up correctly, so monitoring of the recording as it happens is very helpful. This can be used to switch between microphones, or adjust relative levels, or "simply" to ajust levels so that either the levels are above the noise floor, or put them down to avoid clipping.
Much of the "theory" about "natural" sound recording seems to have either gone out of the window, or people have found other ways of getting accceptable results. In the past, some companies, preferred something like the Blumlein coincident mic techniques, others used spaced microphones, some used dummy heads, Ambisonic soundfiled mics. etc. Nowadays it seems that maybe "Anything Goes" - apologies to Cole Porter.
For commercial recordings, I think that many recording companies are using multi-miked systems with digital mixing desks, and digital recorders. Multi-channel recording in this way means that quite a lot of work can be done in post - i.e the recordings can be rebalanced after the event, and this means that there isn't a need for musicians and sound engineers to return to do retakes. This is much more economical. Whereas in the past, the cost of the recording equipment woud have been a barrier to recording (in addition to the cost of the artists) now it is presumably relatively much less. In some cases one musician might be asked to do retakes, and his or her work then patched back in to the overall mix. Of course this has been going on for many years, though many of us weren't aware of it. One specialist singer in this area was Marnie Nixon, who often provided the high notes in some recordings for singets who weren't actually able to get them. "Fake" - yes - of course - in a way - but is it really so bad?
One can see the trends in concerts of BBC orchestras nowadays. It's now quite common to see 20 or more microphones on stage, as well as a few "ambient" microphones round the hall. Whether this produces "better" results than just using very simple microphone arrangements, I don't know - but clearly many sound recording organisations, including the BBC, think so.
My current interest is to know whether it really is better for recording small groups of amateur musicians it makes more sense to just stick with the USB type microphone - Sony, Zoom etc., or to use a mix of "pro" mics and audio interfaces. Possibly, if funds permit, both would be useful.
Professionals will do something else - but they can perhaps afford expensive kit, and hope that they're going to recover the costs in revenue - though in the classical music world that may often be unlikely. Some recordings companies in the past have cross financed classical music recordings from sales of "popular" music - which has led to the term "music industry" - which to me sounds like factory processing, production line stuff, which is what I think in many cases it has become. Cross financing in the past has worked because there was usually/sometimes someone high up in the company who liked classical music and wanted it recorded. Accountants, and business consultants may have frowned upon that cross funding - thinking only of the "bottom line".
Ramble over - for the moment!
I have been looking into this for some time - completely unrelated to the virus - which has come as a considerable surprise.
I only just realised the nature of some of the beasts - microphones, that is. Way back I had some electret microphones (Philips) for use with tape decks. I thought they were pretty good at the time. I think they've now gone to microphone heaven. Condenser microphones were always thought to be better - and it seems still are - though some electrets are quite good.
Electrets are what you'll find in phones, computers, probably those Alexa units, etc. The main reason is that they are mass produced and now very cheap.
Way back some microphones had big jack plugs, but many cheap ones now use small 3.5mm jacks.
There are also dynamic microphones - often used for solo work, or vocals, and now - in the last few years - for podcasting. These are usually mono - though some stereo mics may be available.
Studio mics have been different, and often use a pro connector - XLR. These can be linked to an audio interface by fairly long cables, which as I understand it, are often balanced - so that cable runs can be longer - as they are relatively immune from interference. My understanding of the balanced cables is that if they are placed anywhere near any sources of electrical interference, this should cancel out because of the 3 wire configuration.
Way back in the past, recording and mixing was done in analogue mode, so microphones would be connected with low noise amplifiers to feed into the recording chain.
Some while back, both in the pro and consumer markets, digital mics - such as USB mics appeared. I didn't even bother to think how these work until very recently - though I've had some - currently a Zoom H2n. These microphones have an inbuilt DAC to feed into a USB interface. The quality from a USB mic can be good, but it will depend on both the actual microphone units themseleves, and the DACs used - and to a limited extent also to the USB connection (IMO).
Some mics are also radio mics. In the distant past these could have been analogue radio communications, but now it will be digital. Radio mics have the advantages of not needing trailing wires, but they may introduce other problems, or other problems may emerge when using digital mics. Some digital mics don't work too well for podcasting because the computer (or phones, or other kit) interfere with the communications - either internal or external.
The requirements for podcasting - which seems popular now - and may be more so in the current circumstances - are for clear sound pickup, with low microphone noise, and good rejection of off axis sounds. There isn't necessaily any point in using a stereo mic for this application, and I think few people do that.
On the other hand, for music, many people must surely prefer stereo or surround sound, so may be tempted by microphones such as the Zoom range - or some Sony models. If the aim is to record a concert, then some of these devices have internal memory or record to memory cards, and they are switched on and left, and the recording is retrieved later on and fed back into computer storage. However, that approach doesn't necessarily work if the levels aren't set up correctly, so monitoring of the recording as it happens is very helpful. This can be used to switch between microphones, or adjust relative levels, or "simply" to ajust levels so that either the levels are above the noise floor, or put them down to avoid clipping.
Much of the "theory" about "natural" sound recording seems to have either gone out of the window, or people have found other ways of getting accceptable results. In the past, some companies, preferred something like the Blumlein coincident mic techniques, others used spaced microphones, some used dummy heads, Ambisonic soundfiled mics. etc. Nowadays it seems that maybe "Anything Goes" - apologies to Cole Porter.
For commercial recordings, I think that many recording companies are using multi-miked systems with digital mixing desks, and digital recorders. Multi-channel recording in this way means that quite a lot of work can be done in post - i.e the recordings can be rebalanced after the event, and this means that there isn't a need for musicians and sound engineers to return to do retakes. This is much more economical. Whereas in the past, the cost of the recording equipment woud have been a barrier to recording (in addition to the cost of the artists) now it is presumably relatively much less. In some cases one musician might be asked to do retakes, and his or her work then patched back in to the overall mix. Of course this has been going on for many years, though many of us weren't aware of it. One specialist singer in this area was Marnie Nixon, who often provided the high notes in some recordings for singets who weren't actually able to get them. "Fake" - yes - of course - in a way - but is it really so bad?
One can see the trends in concerts of BBC orchestras nowadays. It's now quite common to see 20 or more microphones on stage, as well as a few "ambient" microphones round the hall. Whether this produces "better" results than just using very simple microphone arrangements, I don't know - but clearly many sound recording organisations, including the BBC, think so.
My current interest is to know whether it really is better for recording small groups of amateur musicians it makes more sense to just stick with the USB type microphone - Sony, Zoom etc., or to use a mix of "pro" mics and audio interfaces. Possibly, if funds permit, both would be useful.
Professionals will do something else - but they can perhaps afford expensive kit, and hope that they're going to recover the costs in revenue - though in the classical music world that may often be unlikely. Some recordings companies in the past have cross financed classical music recordings from sales of "popular" music - which has led to the term "music industry" - which to me sounds like factory processing, production line stuff, which is what I think in many cases it has become. Cross financing in the past has worked because there was usually/sometimes someone high up in the company who liked classical music and wanted it recorded. Accountants, and business consultants may have frowned upon that cross funding - thinking only of the "bottom line".
Ramble over - for the moment!