When I joined the AES I had only a degree in music from a conservatory, some recording experience which may not have been professional yet at that point, plus a recommendation from another member of the AES (David Griesinger). But the organization is specifically open to members of "allied professions" and I was working on the hopeful assumption that professional musicians and recording engineers could be "allied."
Back to the NPR feature--it was "good radio" for those who know little or nothing about the subject matter, but not such good reporting in my opinion. I was especially taken aback by the degree to which microphone design and manufacture was presented as a "secret craft," and the importance that was placed on this mysterious person through whom Mr. Peluso was initiated into the craft through oral tradition. That all paints a picture that can sounds very convincing, but it's pretty skewed.
For example, they included a segment on tuning the diaphragm tension of a capsule "by ear" without presenting this action in any serious technical perspective. It's impressive if someone can do that, certainly; but is it really the best way to do things? Klaus Heyne may believe with all his heart that it is, but what if it really can be done better in some other way? That alters the whole story line, breaks the romantic spell, and makes for less entertaining radio for sure. But maybe better microphones, too.
A lone individual with a heart, working through his human senses rather than by algorithm--by inference the listener is supposed to "get" that this is just how things ought to be done, a nice picture. But a circular re-writing of history is going on here. People should read Helmholtz and other 19th-century physicists on acoustics. It's not as if the microphones that are revered as "classics" today were designed during the dark ages! All the essentials of acoustics were known at that time, and the people who designed these early microphones were scientists who would still understand in essence all the technical concerns of today. The materials, circuit components and some of the production methods might be considered crude by today's standards, though in some respects production required more direct human involvement even for routine tasks, because with the available methods it had to be, and this can have nice esthetic side effects. Old microphones can look very nice in their own interesting way.
But those people weren't amateurs and they didn't have their heads in the clouds. It is very arrogant of people today to believe that we will simply stumble upon basic things which the people back then cannot have seen. I'm not denying that there are a few secrets here and there, particularly with regard to capsules. But science and craft are both involved to a high degree, and either part without enough of the other is very limited in what it can do. The NPR feature separated the two elements to an extreme, and mystified the subject matter.
It also seems a bit unfair for NPR to have singled out this one person as if he alone possessed these secrets--as if he alone is producing microphones with which music can be successfully recorded, emotion and all. If they had done a feature on David Bock, or the people at Royer, for example, if they wanted to avoid well-known manufacturers. Royer to me would be especially interesting because they do all their own manufacturing as far as I am aware; the development of appropriate production techniques is a skill in which this country used to excel, but is perhaps undervalued today. It's not as romantic as the notion of secret knowledge and "tuning" the diaphragm of a capsule by ear, but I think it matters more, and eventually leads to better-sounding microphones.
OK, enough ranting--gotta go. Take care, everyone.
Topic: Story on Peluso mics (Read 3071 times)