8 ms·

Yow! The microphone they are using is $3,600 a piece. I guess that's not as bad as it sounds, given a twenty year life and daily use. http://www.sweetwater.co

Yow! The microphone they are using is $3,600 a piece. I guess that's not as bad as it sounds, given a twenty year life and daily use. http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/U87SetZ http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/U87SetZ

batbomb 10y ago
That's not as bad as it sounds because the console, preamps, compressors, etc... all cost a ton of money too.
- _asummers 10y ago
  Even the headphones themselves are probably at least a grand and they've got way more of those laying around. $3600 is a lot, but audio equipment gets REAL expensive pretty quickly. Edit: Fair enough, I'm entirely incorrect as far as the headphone price point.
  - jsmthrowaway 10y ago
    Sony's MDR7506 is, or at least used to be a few years ago, the reliable radio workhorse. When you spend all day with your headphones, especially in the field, super expensive cans most people like for music are a liability. I love the 7506s: flat, cheap, and comfortable all day. <$100. NOT the consumer version (-V6 or something). Real, purebred, MDR7506. NegativeK is right, too; the $100 AKG range is also popular in working radio, as well as some Sennheiser HD280s. On the production side of things where quality super matters, you'll see the more expensive headphones for sure. But every single person in the last newsroom I saw rocked the 7506, and though I've moved on to more expensive headphones for programming and my music collection, I still miss my 7506s on occasion.
    - nononosisisi 10y ago
      What is a can?
      - jsmthrowaway 10y ago
        Sorry, "cans" is radio slang for headphones, from the can-and-string metaphor. I'll make that clearer.
        cnvogel 10y ago
        Inside one of my Focusrite audio interfaces, the internal headphone-amp, and wiring to the headphone connector, is labeled "cans" ;-).
    - TillE 10y ago
      Yep! Headphone nerd Marco Arment hates them for some reason, but you see tons of actual professional musicians using the MDR-7506 in the recording studio. Not just radio/broadcast people. I don't think there's anything that comes close for ~$100 in terms of sound quality and comfort; you'd have to spend at least $300 for a real upgrade. And even then, there's an element of subjectivity.
      - jsmthrowaway 10y ago
        They shoot for flat when they make them and they're indeed flat enough for sleeves-up radio work, but I have heard folks say (somewhat correctly) that they're a bit bright up high and don't have enough gas down low. I can understand Marco's opinion in the context of being an audio nerd, because they're flat, but potentially not flat enough for some kinds of listening. But yeah, couldn't agree more. Price point.
        dsr_ 10y ago
        And they last ten years, then you change the pads for $10 and they go another ten years...
      - timc3 10y ago
        I think they are good enough for the application they are designed for and somewhat of a bargain at the price point. Having listened to most and owning/owned for both studio and personal listening use some of the headphones that Marco reviews I can’t help but wonder if there is some bias going on with the music he reviews with or whether he actually does have very skewed hearing. Having been used to fine equipment and rooms whilst working in mastering suites, recording studios and I have picked up a preference for probably a certain type of sound but when auditioning and getting used to audio equipment I often test with a wide variety of sources that includes some music I don’t personally like but know quite well (such as country and western) as a reference to understand capabilities across the board. Whatever ones thoughts it highlights the importance of auditioning oneself and getting to know something well (goes for speakers, rooms and headphones). It’s possible to do produce a good result using MDR-7506 or NS10s if you are comfortable with them and have the skill to do so.
    - pistle 10y ago
      I have owned multiple pairs, and still use one for my main work. The bass and treble roll-off isn't great for mixing and mastering, but it's a truly great value for the money for most monitoring uses in performance. It's better on the production vs. consumption end - where people like all their colored sound. It's like the NS-10's of the headphone world. Well-understood and consistent, while offering a great average, flat experience that translates well over the air.
  - NegativeK 10y ago
    Actually, I've seen AKG studio monitor headphones quite a bit -- and they're right around $100. Whether NPR uses them is a different thing, though.
  - cannam 10y ago
    Apropos of not much, I like the venerable Beyer DT250 for everyday use -- they're similar to the DT150 studio cans but with a velour kind of finish, that makes them comfier at home but not so suitable for passing around in the studio. They're also in the 100-200 dollars/quid range.
- baldfat 10y ago
  preamps will cost a good couple thousand but compressors, etc... have now moved into digital computers. An expensive set of plug ins will cost $2,000 but you could get by with $200 easily as a professional vocal shop.
- cnvogel 10y ago
  Preamps and compressors will be integrated in the "console" (even though typically the user-interface will be separate from I/O and DSP, the latter being housed in a 19" rack). This is radio, not some boutique studio with a ton of outboard gear.
semi-extrinsic 10y ago
So let's say they have one mic per five employees. Those employees cost (I'm guessing) at least $300 000 per year, and most of what they produce of value for NPR goes through that mic. Doesn't look very expensive now? And I haven't factored in cost/rent for the studio, music licensing, and a whole lot of other OPEX. Since there are quite a few local radio stations around, I'd say the CAPEX is not a big deal.
- jsmthrowaway 10y ago
  Talent for NPR might pull $300k (I have doubts) but if you're including everybody else when you say "employees" you're shooting astronomically high. Radio pays notoriously bad. Local TV is just as bad, and they can't even afford photographers any more so reporters do their own shooting; I was laid off as a photographer when that change was made at a former haunt and newscast quality plummeted. (It's popular and spun positively now: Google "backpack journalism.") Particularly local, you have to really love the craft to be in it. National/international is better, but to an extent. On-air talent soaks up the salary budget at pretty much every shop, universally, and to use a local example like KTVU or KRON I wouldn't be surprised if on-air talent was making $500k or less. You can do better at Google. The producer running the newscast is probably struggling to make rent. The camera operator certainly is, if they haven't yet been replaced with automatic, motorized cues driven by an overworked TD, who is just as worried about their own rent. Ad-based business models suck, particularly when owners hate spending money. All media owners do. We got punished for the millions that had to be invested for the HDTV transition with 15% pay cuts at one station in the middle of nowhere.
  - malchow 10y ago
    NPR's last CEO, Gary Knell, made about $750K in his last year in the job. They have a number of highly paid mid-level people, such a diversity officer (Keith Woods) who makes $220K. More notable hosts make over the stated $300K, including Steve Inskeep ($400k) and Michele Norris ($350K –– wage gap!). Highest honors, at least according to the 2013 990 linked here[1], go to Renée Montagne, who pulled in $412,581.) These are not fully loaded costs. You probably want to add 10% for D.C.-based employees for employee overhead incl. labor lawyers, retirement contributions, payroll tax, &c. Not bad to be a corporation that doesn't pay taxes, takes federal taxpayer money, takes state taxpayer money, takes corporate gifts, solicits foundation grants, and asks for individual donations. [1] http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/520/520907625/520907625_201409_990.pdf http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/520/5209076...
superuser2 10y ago
I'd be stunned if the console it's connected to were any less than $20k. More likely in the $50-100k range. Audio is a very expensive game to play well.
- ygra 10y ago
  Considering things like gold-plated speaker cables and crystal sound purifiers, audio is also a very expensive game to play stupidly ;-)
  - cannam 10y ago
    Studio audio technicians are not so easily fooled. I'm sure the field has its fair share of peculiar magic, but it's not like home audio. People who spend thousands on exotic speakers in the name of "transparency" in their home setup could do so much better in that respect with a pair of active studio monitors. But they might not like the results as much.
    - doctorshady 10y ago
      Keep in mind though, the frequency response curve of studio monitors is more intended for pointing out flaws in a mix than enjoying music. Some of the engineers I've talked to pointed out that NS-10 monitors (once very poor selling consumer speakers, they've been considered legendary in studios for 25/+ years) are particularly harsh, and they don't enjoy listening to things on them when they don't have to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamaha_NS-10 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamaha_NS-10 Things like Beats have frequency response curves that're basically a polar opposite from the NS-10s. Even less cringe-worthy headphones, like Sennheiser HD-280s have sort of a "smiley face" (dip from ~900-2800 hertz, while boosting very low and very high frequencies) EQ curve. Not to discredit them - they are good headphones, but in doing my own projects, I honestly feel like I've done better work on terrible sounding, $5 headphones.
      - hammock 10y ago
        "If it sounds good on NS10's it'll sound good on anything" I have fucked up a few mixes by using $5 headphones. But yes properly monitoring gear will point out flaws rather than make something sound good. When I get to the end of a mix (using Sony MDR7506's for example) and I think "man this sounds SO CLOSE but it's still a little shitty" then I'll go and check it on iPhone headphones or something and it'll sound fantastic.
baldfat 10y ago
I use a AKG C-414 ($900 +) with the bass roll and you are pretty much there.
- TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
  All mics colour the sound in different ways. For some reason the U87 adds a colouration that's perceived as expensive, larger than life, and authoritative. Other mics - including cheaper Neumanns - don't have quite the same effect. It's not about capturing the sound perfectly accurately, but about creating an impression with sound. That's why some pro audio gear is so insanely expensive. It's very hard to create the same impression digitally because this kind of subtle analog distortion is complex, non-linear, and not very well understood.
  - baldfat 10y ago
    There is a reason why AKG 414 are probably the second most popular mic for studios that have huge budgets. 414 sound is also considered an awesome mic.
    - wrigby 10y ago
      I've never gotten a better drum overhead sound than with a spaced pair of 414's (I think TL II, but it's been awhile). Love that mic. That said, I don't think the 414 color is the same as the U87 color. My impression has been that the U87 is much more flattering to vocals, but I've admittedly never had the opportunity to use one.
BorisEm 10y ago
The Neuman U87 is a very popular microphone in the audio world in general (TV, radio, post-production and even music), especially for voices[1]. Going a little further, the mixing console you can see on the picture is a Lawo Sapphire[2], which NPR seems to have installed in 2012. According to this gearslutz post[3], a 12 faders + central section was starting at 20,000€ back in 2010. You can see on the picture that NPR has a 24 faders version. The audio monitor on top on the console is an RTW[4]. It's kind of hard to tell which model it really is, but the TM9 for example starts at $4,200[5]. [1]https://www.gearslutz.com/board/low-end-theory/618100-mic-voice-overs.html?highlight=voice+over+mic https://www.gearslutz.com/board/low-end-theory/618100-mic-vo... [2]https://www.lawo.com/products/radio-consoles/sapphire.html https://www.lawo.com/products/radio-consoles/sapphire.html [3]https://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-computers/864209-what-daw-controller-mixer.html https://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-computers/864209-what-... [4]https://www.rtw.com/en/products/audio-monitors.html https://www.rtw.com/en/products/audio-monitors.html [5]http://www.rspeaudio.com/RTW-TouchMonitor-TM9-p/rtw-tm9.htm http://www.rspeaudio.com/RTW-TouchMonitor-TM9-p/rtw-tm9.htm

batbomb 10y ago

That's not as bad as it sounds because the console, preamps, compressors, etc... all cost a ton of money too.

_asummers 10y ago
Even the headphones themselves are probably at least a grand and they've got way more of those laying around. $3600 is a lot, but audio equipment gets REAL expensive pretty quickly. Edit: Fair enough, I'm entirely incorrect as far as the headphone price point.
- jsmthrowaway 10y ago
  Sony's MDR7506 is, or at least used to be a few years ago, the reliable radio workhorse. When you spend all day with your headphones, especially in the field, super expensive cans most people like for music are a liability. I love the 7506s: flat, cheap, and comfortable all day. <$100. NOT the consumer version (-V6 or something). Real, purebred, MDR7506. NegativeK is right, too; the $100 AKG range is also popular in working radio, as well as some Sennheiser HD280s. On the production side of things where quality super matters, you'll see the more expensive headphones for sure. But every single person in the last newsroom I saw rocked the 7506, and though I've moved on to more expensive headphones for programming and my music collection, I still miss my 7506s on occasion.
  - nononosisisi 10y ago
    What is a can?
    - jsmthrowaway 10y ago
      Sorry, "cans" is radio slang for headphones, from the can-and-string metaphor. I'll make that clearer.
      - cnvogel 10y ago
        Inside one of my Focusrite audio interfaces, the internal headphone-amp, and wiring to the headphone connector, is labeled "cans" ;-).
  - TillE 10y ago
    Yep! Headphone nerd Marco Arment hates them for some reason, but you see tons of actual professional musicians using the MDR-7506 in the recording studio. Not just radio/broadcast people. I don't think there's anything that comes close for ~$100 in terms of sound quality and comfort; you'd have to spend at least $300 for a real upgrade. And even then, there's an element of subjectivity.
    - jsmthrowaway 10y ago
      They shoot for flat when they make them and they're indeed flat enough for sleeves-up radio work, but I have heard folks say (somewhat correctly) that they're a bit bright up high and don't have enough gas down low. I can understand Marco's opinion in the context of being an audio nerd, because they're flat, but potentially not flat enough for some kinds of listening. But yeah, couldn't agree more. Price point.
      - dsr_ 10y ago
        And they last ten years, then you change the pads for $10 and they go another ten years...
    - timc3 10y ago
      I think they are good enough for the application they are designed for and somewhat of a bargain at the price point. Having listened to most and owning/owned for both studio and personal listening use some of the headphones that Marco reviews I can’t help but wonder if there is some bias going on with the music he reviews with or whether he actually does have very skewed hearing. Having been used to fine equipment and rooms whilst working in mastering suites, recording studios and I have picked up a preference for probably a certain type of sound but when auditioning and getting used to audio equipment I often test with a wide variety of sources that includes some music I don’t personally like but know quite well (such as country and western) as a reference to understand capabilities across the board. Whatever ones thoughts it highlights the importance of auditioning oneself and getting to know something well (goes for speakers, rooms and headphones). It’s possible to do produce a good result using MDR-7506 or NS10s if you are comfortable with them and have the skill to do so.
  - pistle 10y ago
    I have owned multiple pairs, and still use one for my main work. The bass and treble roll-off isn't great for mixing and mastering, but it's a truly great value for the money for most monitoring uses in performance. It's better on the production vs. consumption end - where people like all their colored sound. It's like the NS-10's of the headphone world. Well-understood and consistent, while offering a great average, flat experience that translates well over the air.
- NegativeK 10y ago
  Actually, I've seen AKG studio monitor headphones quite a bit -- and they're right around $100. Whether NPR uses them is a different thing, though.
- cannam 10y ago
  Apropos of not much, I like the venerable Beyer DT250 for everyday use -- they're similar to the DT150 studio cans but with a velour kind of finish, that makes them comfier at home but not so suitable for passing around in the studio. They're also in the 100-200 dollars/quid range.
baldfat 10y ago
preamps will cost a good couple thousand but compressors, etc... have now moved into digital computers. An expensive set of plug ins will cost $2,000 but you could get by with $200 easily as a professional vocal shop.
cnvogel 10y ago
Preamps and compressors will be integrated in the "console" (even though typically the user-interface will be separate from I/O and DSP, the latter being housed in a 19" rack). This is radio, not some boutique studio with a ton of outboard gear.

semi-extrinsic 10y ago

So let's say they have one mic per five employees. Those employees cost (I'm guessing) at least $300 000 per year, and most of what they produce of value for NPR goes through that mic. Doesn't look very expensive now? And I haven't factored in cost/rent for the studio, music licensing, and a whole lot of other OPEX. Since there are quite a few local radio stations around, I'd say the CAPEX is not a big deal.

jsmthrowaway 10y ago
Talent for NPR might pull $300k (I have doubts) but if you're including everybody else when you say "employees" you're shooting astronomically high. Radio pays notoriously bad. Local TV is just as bad, and they can't even afford photographers any more so reporters do their own shooting; I was laid off as a photographer when that change was made at a former haunt and newscast quality plummeted. (It's popular and spun positively now: Google "backpack journalism.") Particularly local, you have to really love the craft to be in it. National/international is better, but to an extent. On-air talent soaks up the salary budget at pretty much every shop, universally, and to use a local example like KTVU or KRON I wouldn't be surprised if on-air talent was making $500k or less. You can do better at Google. The producer running the newscast is probably struggling to make rent. The camera operator certainly is, if they haven't yet been replaced with automatic, motorized cues driven by an overworked TD, who is just as worried about their own rent. Ad-based business models suck, particularly when owners hate spending money. All media owners do. We got punished for the millions that had to be invested for the HDTV transition with 15% pay cuts at one station in the middle of nowhere.
- malchow 10y ago
  NPR's last CEO, Gary Knell, made about $750K in his last year in the job. They have a number of highly paid mid-level people, such a diversity officer (Keith Woods) who makes $220K. More notable hosts make over the stated $300K, including Steve Inskeep ($400k) and Michele Norris ($350K –– wage gap!). Highest honors, at least according to the 2013 990 linked here[1], go to Renée Montagne, who pulled in $412,581.) These are not fully loaded costs. You probably want to add 10% for D.C.-based employees for employee overhead incl. labor lawyers, retirement contributions, payroll tax, &c. Not bad to be a corporation that doesn't pay taxes, takes federal taxpayer money, takes state taxpayer money, takes corporate gifts, solicits foundation grants, and asks for individual donations. [1] http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/520/520907625/520907625_201409_990.pdf http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/520/5209076...

superuser2 10y ago

I'd be stunned if the console it's connected to were any less than $20k. More likely in the $50-100k range. Audio is a very expensive game to play well.

ygra 10y ago
Considering things like gold-plated speaker cables and crystal sound purifiers, audio is also a very expensive game to play stupidly ;-)
- cannam 10y ago
  Studio audio technicians are not so easily fooled. I'm sure the field has its fair share of peculiar magic, but it's not like home audio. People who spend thousands on exotic speakers in the name of "transparency" in their home setup could do so much better in that respect with a pair of active studio monitors. But they might not like the results as much.
  - doctorshady 10y ago
    Keep in mind though, the frequency response curve of studio monitors is more intended for pointing out flaws in a mix than enjoying music. Some of the engineers I've talked to pointed out that NS-10 monitors (once very poor selling consumer speakers, they've been considered legendary in studios for 25/+ years) are particularly harsh, and they don't enjoy listening to things on them when they don't have to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamaha_NS-10 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamaha_NS-10 Things like Beats have frequency response curves that're basically a polar opposite from the NS-10s. Even less cringe-worthy headphones, like Sennheiser HD-280s have sort of a "smiley face" (dip from ~900-2800 hertz, while boosting very low and very high frequencies) EQ curve. Not to discredit them - they are good headphones, but in doing my own projects, I honestly feel like I've done better work on terrible sounding, $5 headphones.
    - hammock 10y ago
      "If it sounds good on NS10's it'll sound good on anything" I have fucked up a few mixes by using $5 headphones. But yes properly monitoring gear will point out flaws rather than make something sound good. When I get to the end of a mix (using Sony MDR7506's for example) and I think "man this sounds SO CLOSE but it's still a little shitty" then I'll go and check it on iPhone headphones or something and it'll sound fantastic.

baldfat 10y ago

I use a AKG C-414 ($900 +) with the bass roll and you are pretty much there.

TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
All mics colour the sound in different ways. For some reason the U87 adds a colouration that's perceived as expensive, larger than life, and authoritative. Other mics - including cheaper Neumanns - don't have quite the same effect. It's not about capturing the sound perfectly accurately, but about creating an impression with sound. That's why some pro audio gear is so insanely expensive. It's very hard to create the same impression digitally because this kind of subtle analog distortion is complex, non-linear, and not very well understood.
- baldfat 10y ago
  There is a reason why AKG 414 are probably the second most popular mic for studios that have huge budgets. 414 sound is also considered an awesome mic.
  - wrigby 10y ago
    I've never gotten a better drum overhead sound than with a spaced pair of 414's (I think TL II, but it's been awhile). Love that mic. That said, I don't think the 414 color is the same as the U87 color. My impression has been that the U87 is much more flattering to vocals, but I've admittedly never had the opportunity to use one.

BorisEm 10y ago

The Neuman U87 is a very popular microphone in the audio world in general (TV, radio, post-production and even music), especially for voices[1]. Going a little further, the mixing console you can see on the picture is a Lawo Sapphire[2], which NPR seems to have installed in 2012. According to this gearslutz post[3], a 12 faders + central section was starting at 20,000€ back in 2010. You can see on the picture that NPR has a 24 faders version. The audio monitor on top on the console is an RTW[4]. It's kind of hard to tell which model it really is, but the TM9 for example starts at $4,200[5]. [1]https://www.gearslutz.com/board/low-end-theory/618100-mic-voice-overs.html?highlight=voice+over+mic https://www.gearslutz.com/board/low-end-theory/618100-mic-vo... [2]https://www.lawo.com/products/radio-consoles/sapphire.html https://www.lawo.com/products/radio-consoles/sapphire.html [3]https://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-computers/864209-what-daw-controller-mixer.html https://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-computers/864209-what-... [4]https://www.rtw.com/en/products/audio-monitors.html https://www.rtw.com/en/products/audio-monitors.html [5]http://www.rspeaudio.com/RTW-TouchMonitor-TM9-p/rtw-tm9.htm http://www.rspeaudio.com/RTW-TouchMonitor-TM9-p/rtw-tm9.htm