Rob Danielson wrote:
>
> Walter wrote:
> >Rob Danielson wrote:
> >
> >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.
>
> Walter--
> I think I see what Bob is getting at in relation to hot
> signals/programs. Fairly frequently, I find myself interested in
> making the best recordings I can of very low level, distant sounds.
> For such high-gain, field recording applications where DAT tape
> saturation levels for background sounds can go as low as 2%, wouldn't
> the extra bits in 24 bit recording would add some resolution? Right
> now with 16 bits, when I boost/equalize one of these recordings to
> create a background track, it seems like definition is limited by the
> original which used only a fraction of the bits the recorder was
> capable of. Of course, at such levels, noise is a big factor but even
> better resolved noise is easier to work with,., Maybe I should also
> considering using another amp in the field for even more gain?
Well, I'm sure Bob is not thinking nature recording. If you did nature
recording and could get the settings he's recommending for 24 bit you
would have far more than you have now, that would be true even for 16
bit. That article contains a lot of interesting thoughts. Much I knew
before, but organized different.
You are right about adding some resolution. Though that might just
resolve noise.
I'm not sure boosting the gain will help, there are definite limits. You
may need to take a look at the mics you are using. You noted doing
ambiance with MKH-20's. Those are fairly sensitive, but not a lot of
reach. Maybe consider something like the SASS enclosure like Lang does.
That in theory gives you some extra gain before the mic. If you have the
pair of MKH-20's that would be cheap to try.
My longest range stereo mic is the Telinga. Parabolics do have problems,
but for picking a stereo field out around something that's way out there
it's hard to beat that. I'm expecting good things from using two
MKH-816's for stereo or a 816 and my MKH-30 in M/S. In both cases for
any kind of reach something like the MP-2 will be essential.
Have you tried feeding the pre into the Tascom's mic inputs? Might help.
With my portadisc, it's got attenuators to balance things, and when I
recorded from Lang's MP-2, I used settings in the range for using a mic
and no attenuation. The gain on the Portadisc was set to about 2/3 up.
That certainly was picking up clean signal from a distance. (we were
running then with a pair of MKH-60's) I think the trick to these
multiple systems is to balance it all out so no stage is near it's
limits in settings. They usually work best somewhere in mid range.
Walt
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|