I'm very surprised. Perhaps Walt is right when he hints that the MP2
transformers color the sound. Or - possible - what has caused your Tascam
noise has been interactions with the Tascam phantom power, which is not
always very clean.
Or perhaps I've been wrong about the Tascam inputs. Perhaps the preamp noise
is in level, or almost in level, with the MKH mic noise.
Klas.
At 11:52 2002-08-09 -0500, you wrote:
>Klas--
>I used a Tascam DAP1 with mhk-20's to record low level rural ambiance
>over several nites last spring. To my ears, there was less noise
>when I routed through the MP-2/balanced line out.
>Rob D.
>
> = = = =
>
>>When using your Tascam, which microphones did you use?
>>
>>I have to ask, as I find the Tascam inputs quite okay. But perhaps I have to
>>reconsider? I only use high-output mic's like Telinga and MKH and others,
>>and I always get mic noise, not pre-amp noise.
>>
>>I let Walt comment on the usb preamp.
>>
>>Klas.
>>
>>At 11:32 2002-08-08 -0500, you 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.
>>>
>>>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
>>>
>>>
>>>= = = = =
>>>
>>>
>>>>Walt,
>>>>
>>>>apart from Gianni Pavan, who knows what he wants and have some special
>>>>wishes, I agree, - I don't really understand the demand for pre-amps. What
>>>>do people hope to get? If the pre-amp is perfect, it will not change
>>>>anything except the gain!?
>>>>It was very different some 20 years ago, when you had to squeeze the best
>>>>out of a dynamic microphone. Or now, if you have to handle very strong sound
>>>>pressure levels.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, Rob - Sounddevices use input transformers manufactured by Lunddahl, a
>>>>father and a son living nearby my place. Best transformers in the world, no
>>>>doupt! That a small Wisconsin company find such quality pieces all the way
>>>>from Sweden, really shows their class and consideration! Salut!
>>>>(On the other hand I question the use of input transformers, but that is
>>>>another debate.)
>>>>
>>>>Klas.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>At 23:03 2002-08-07 -0400, you wrote:
>>>>>Rob Danielson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello!
>>>>>> I use an MP-2 only almost daily with phantom power mics, the noise is
>>>>>> very, very low. Sounddevices.com is a small company here in
>>>>>> Wisconsin. I'm sure they'd be happy to explain their specs and
>>>>>> discuss design and performance needs. Very nice folks.
>>>>>> Rob D.
>>>>>
>>>>>The usual quick and dirty test is to monitor it's output at full gain
>> >>>while switching the phantom power on and off. Not foolproof, but a good
>> >>>indicator, better if a way can be figured to apply full load to the
power.
>> >>>
>> >>>Have you used it with rechargables? They seem to be giving 6 hours with
>>>>>alkalines and that without phantom power.
>>>>>
>>>>>I've managed without a pre so far, but since I've now got the MKH
>>>>>shotgun mics, I'll probably want one sooner or later. And the M/S
>>>>>decoder is attractive so that I could monitor in stereo. It's one I've
>>>>>been eyeing.
>>>>>
>>>>>Walt
>>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>This outgoing e-mail is scanned for viruses with Norton 2002
>>
>>Telinga Microphones, Botarbo,
>>S-748 96 Tobo, Sweden.
>>Phone & fax int + 295 310 01
>>email:
>>
>>org. no SE440130067001
>>
>>
>>
>>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Rob Danielson
>Film Department
>University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
This outgoing e-mail is scanned for viruses with Norton 2002
Telinga Microphones, Botarbo,
S-748 96 Tobo, Sweden.
Phone & fax int + 295 310 01
email:
org. no SE440130067001
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
>From Tue Mar 8 18:22:37 2005
Message: 3
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 23:28:31 -0400
From: Walter Knapp <>
Subject: Re: Recording like photography
Roger C Boughton wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> I agree with what Walter and others have written. The best recordings are
> those that were captured at the time of recording in the field. Time is best
> spent learning your subject, getting to know its habitat, having the best
> possible kit, particularly microphones, and being patient.
>
> My particular interest is in soundscapes, and binaural ones to boot, I have
> produced only one CD so far, and that probably reflects the time it takes to
> get recordings that I think are fit for publication. Very little editing
> needs to be done if you have a good recording, it just takes a hell of a time
> to get it in the first place.
I certainly agree, getting all the conditions for a truly good recording
together is a daunting task. Especially as a lot of it is out of our
hands. Understanding the habitat, the environment, our callers, and our
equipment is certainly a big part of it. So is just pure simple luck.
Meanwhile I do a lot of less good recording gaining experience to handle
those optimum times. We learn from the less good recordings how to do
the good.
> If, on the other hand, you are just recording for species identification
> purposes, editing of poorer quality recordings is not only acceptable but
> probably essential, if some rarer vocalisation is to be understood.
I kind of run both tracks. I never expect to stop recording for species
documentation. And this sort of recording is where it is, regardless of
what else there is you get a usable recording. This is a different sort
of challenge than recording under only optimum conditions. Even there I
make every effort to maximize the quality. Well except waiting for
extended periods. I'm always driven by the knowledge that time spent at
one site documenting is time not spent finding another. The need is
huge, so I try to be effective in my use of time.
I also am constantly on the prowl for the quality recordings, either
calls or soundscapes, or both.
> By the way, who out there has made that "perfect recording", and if they have
> !!! what was it.
Maybe before I die!
I do have a few that have inspired greater efforts. One, for instance is
frogs calling with a background of a distant thunderstorm. No a great
recording by any means but the recording has inspired a lot of thought
into getting that sort of thing better.
When I record I'm often thinking what I could do on the spot to get a
better recording, or what I could do with my hardware kit to improve my
chances. Or what to add or remove from the kit.
Keep the recorder in use, you can always discard, and you will learn
more than just sitting waiting for the perfect recording. Perfect
recordings don't just occur, they are made.
Walt
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|