Rob Danielson wrote:
> do macs do usb 2.0?
Of course. Via add on cards.
>>As I said, I've not researched it as it's not compelling to me to have
>>that sort of thing.
>
>
> You bet, but,
> http://www.midiman.net/news/pdf/m-audio_sonicatheater_pr.pdf ,.don't
> you think it's 8 out and 2 in?
It's unclear, there are several models with several names. The Sonica
Theator is only one. My impression was that it was the model designed
primarily for output. There is even a version that's a PCI bus card. May
have been some firewire as well, I can't remember.
As I noted, someone who is interested in surround can go do their own
research and tell the group. I am not going to go do it for you, nor am
I responsible for what's found. I did read that press release, also info
on a couple of the other models. Mostly incomplete like all PR fluff.
But I did read at one point where you could record 7.1 surround into a
mac. Go look, find out what each model does and let us know.
I just reported something I thought some might want to check out. And
was amused that surround had added two more channels making it even more
bulky and expensive.
>>7.1 surround is how many mics?
>
>
> For realists, 8, of course! Use your mkh-110 for the sub! (.1) The
> m-audio device probably also configures for 5.1 surround.
What! Compromise for only 5.1 surround! The whole point of surround is
to show off. Once 7.1 exists, 5.1 is not going to be as good a bragging
point. It's the my home theater is better than your home theater crowd
who buy these things and build the necessary rooms to house them. Or at
least that seems to be the only folks I know around here who have
anything like a accurate surround system. I know lots of stuff that has
surround on it's label, but can hardly even do justice to a stereo field.
I doubt you will find many subs that can accurately do so low a
frequency as to need the MKH-110. You certainly will have trouble with
any field recorder handling it. My own feeling is that most will not
like the low frequency sound recorded by a MKH-110, because they are
used to sound recordings where the low end has been restricted to keep
from overpowering things.
As a practical matter right now, either 5.1 surround or 7.1 surround
truly and realistically recorded is far from mobile enough for my style
of nature recording. I'm willing to bet I won't find anyone doing it out
in a swamp in this area. I know I'm just about the only one doing stereo
routinely out in the wetlands down here.
>>Think about it, then
>>think about setting all that up out in the woods. Stereo is enough to
>>cart around.
>
>
> Even 4 mics opens the perspective greatly. Then there are 4 channel
> crossfades! The motu 828 firewire boxes with 8 I/O are ~$700, For
> field, record into ibook, powerbook.
>
> Emagic's usb box, the EMI 2/6, does 5.1 with 2-I and 6-O @~$300.
So there are plenty of interface boxes available. I don't want to hear
any more excuses for those advocating surround sound nature recording.
Now it's about microphones, not the boxes. So it's $700 for the box. Now
to match the mkh-110 we will need at least 4 more mkh mics at $1200 and
up each new price. Think about the minimum buy in for a mono nature
recording mic, then multiply that by the number of channels you will
record, it's a lot of money even with cheap mics. Unless you are going
to go so low that you are recording with noisy mics, something I'd not
recommend for what's the ultimate ambiance format. Plus there is all the
support gear. Outdoors will require suspensions and windscreens, not a
trivial thing, will cost at least half the mkh mic cost if bought new.
Then there is no way you are going to hand hold all that, so out come
the mic stands. Then you have to get into how the mic placement works
out for accurate recording. I don't want to even think about sorting out
phase differences in a surround system. Especially since each location
will differ.
Meanwhile the bird has flown away laughing. Or Lang's beaver have eaten
all the mic cables. Or the gopher frogs have done their one night for
the year.
That's why I don't bother with surround. I'd have to severely restrict
what I record. Mobility and ease of use is a big factor. How many people
in this group have told us that parabolics are too cumbersome and
restricting for nature recording, that only a single shotgun mic had the
mobility? That's a small part of what surround would entail.
On top of that almost nobody who would buy a CD of frogcalls will be
listening to them on a surround sound system. It will be inexpensive
stereo portables, or maybe headphones. A home theator is not a very high
priority with most outdoor lovers. The effort I'm currently making to
get accurate, expansive stereo fields is mostly wasted. We had plenty of
time in the Studio session yesterday to have a fair discussion of this
factor.
I'm sure there will be a small market for surround ambiance. It won't
have to be accurately recorded for most of the customers who are more
likely to be using it as sonic wallpaper.
Walt
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|