I join!
I like very much to read the posts of this group to learn, to find new
friends, to rejoin old ones, to freely ask and answer.
thanks to all!
Gianni
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gianni Pavan
Email
Centro Interdisciplinare di Bioacustica e Ricerche Ambientali
Universita' degli Studi di Pavia
Via Taramelli 24, 27100 PAVIA, ITALIA
Tel/Fax +39-0382-525234 Laboratori
Tel/Fax +39-0382-526208 Segreteria
Web http://www.unipv.it/cibra
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
>From Tue Mar 8 18:22:36 2005
Message: 13
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 16:11:12 -0400
From: Walter Knapp <>
Subject: Re: mic pre with headphone out
Rob Danielson wrote:
>
> Klas--
> Good point, but I haven't been able to find an affordable recorder
> with a good, built-in pre. I used the built-in preamp in a $1500
> Tascam DAP1 for years and the MP2 has a lot less noise and I think a
> better sound. You think the HHB pre will compare to something with
> Lunddahls? Know of a recorder with a good pre that is than a $700 DAT
> + a $800 pre? I use the -10dB line out into line in on my DAT.
There has been some discussion on the quality of Tascam pre's (and
phantom power). You are probably right there, by the sound of it.
>From what I can tell, the Portadisc's pre is fairly good. If it's pushed
to the peg some noise will show up sometimes, though not always. But, if
your mic system is good enough that you are not doing this it's nice and cl=
ean.
Part of the problem that causes built in pre's to be panned is that
folks doing nature recording are often pushing their mics well outside
their designs, to say nothing of the recorders. A shotgun, for instance
is designed for picking up dialog on a movie set, a relatively short
distance. Not picking up a birdcall from a much greater distance. So the
shotgun provides a weak signal and people compensate by pegging the gain
on the recorder and by amplifying the recording later. This will always
expose the worst side of any pre. The recorder itself is also designed
for reasonable signal levels, not the faint stuff we feed it. Drive the
recorder with something like the Telinga, or get close with the shotguns
and the built in pre will give you nice, noise free recordings. To push
the shotguns for distance you need more gain, and a external pre that's
very low noise along with low noise mics is the way to go for that. That
way nothing gets pushed to the peg. It's expensive because the signal
from the mic is still very weak, so all the chain has to be low noise,
particularly the part before the pre.
I doubt you would have a $1500 recorder that contained the equivalent of
a $800 pre. Or if you did, some other part of the recorder would
probably suffer.
The Lundahls provide a sound you like. They change the sound in a way
that's been declared good at the moment in certain groups. These sorts
of things are as much custom and habit as absolutes. A change in what's
the "in" sound could just as easily toss them out. Note I'm happy enough
with their sound too. But in time those making them will quit, and we
will still be able to record quality sound. I try to avoid getting too
tied to specific equipment, lots of different equipment will do the job
very well.
> Pres may become even more important. In theory, don't you think a
> good transparent pre --> 24 bit usb--> hard drive will impress us?
> Rob
I'm not convinced that 24 bit is impressive all that much anyway. Or
that usb will handle it well. To say nothing of amps, speakers,
headphones, mics for input, etc.
You might want to look at the thoughts of Bob Katz on 24 bit in the
article I quoted:
http://www.digido.com/integrated.html
He's of the opinion that in terms of metering that it's being sometimes
used incorrectly. That a lot of the 24 bit should become increased headroom=
.
Walt
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|