naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: a preamp survey

Subject: Re: a preamp survey
From: Walter Knapp <>
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 16:11:44 -0500
From: Rob Danielson <>

> I'm trying to address mic/pre combinations (internal or not) for 
> recording location ambience on a budget-- people who will invest 
> $500-$1000 for a whole field rig but not in a single mic, external 
> pre, or recorder. I like to see more of these folks out there having 
> fun and getting better results. Its the frugal/DIY side of me talking.

I'm well aware of this problem. Funny how folks can be talked into 
spending several hundred on a pre, but it's harder to get them to spend 
the same amount on a mic. Even though the mic is going to do more 
improvement.

I'm constantly promoting nature recording and trying to hook new folks. 
Always looking for things I can recommend that are less expensive. But, 
adding a pre in is not one of them. For a new beginner I recommend that 
the recorder and mic is the way to go. That gives more money for the 
mic. And keeps the complications of early learning down.

>>>If one is trying to run a very quiet mic with consumer MD pre's then the
>>>pre could be limiting. You have a mismatch in equipment. You have a
>>>choice of upgrading the recorder or sticking in a separate pre and
>>>hoping that's enough. Against going with a recorder with suitable pre's
>>>you have a limited amount you can spend on the combo of consumer
>>>recorder and pre before you have reached the price of replacing the
>>>whole thing.
>>>
>>>Judging from my experience with going to the Telinga while continuing
>>>with the Sony MZ-R30, I'd say it's mostly mic that counts, pre is only a
>>>small part of the equation. And not getting the quality mic, no pre will
>>>overcome what the mic did not do right. What this says is you might or
>>>might not be getting a pre, but for improvement you must get the mic.
> 
> 
> For loud sounds/settings, I agree, this is probably the case.

It's even more true for quiet sounds.

>>>It might be better to look at it as dynamic range. The self noise sets
>>>the floor of the dynamic range, the mic sensitivity sets the top of the
>>>dynamic range for any given site. You hand that to a pre, you cannot
>>>increase the dynamic range, but you can position it within the available
>>>digital dynamic range, which is much greater than the site's range. And,
>>>of course if there is not enough clean dynamic range in the pre to
>>>position the site dynamic range then the pre can make it worse.
> 
> 
> I'm at the noise floor of pretty much with every component. I can 
> hear an increase in broadband noise above 2K when bit 
> depth/saturation drops lower than 1%. Maybe more very, very clean 
> gain to get me up ~3% saturation might help, but probably only a tiny 
> bit.  Recording at 24 bits is helping there already.  Dynamically, I 
> lose some stuff off the top like a beaver felling a tree 60-80 yards 
> away or deer sniffing the zep, but those over-mod disappointments are 
> rare.

You are at the end where the cost vs gain curve is all against you.

If you are trying to record with local mics and the subject is distant, 
that's a large part of your problem. As much as there is this bias 
against parabolics, it's their world. You are way outside the arena of 
local mics. At 60-80 yards every fiber the beaver cuts is clearly 
audible if not loud in my telinga. I can hear the ripples of them 
swimming at that distance. Or the rustle of the leaves with each bite on 
the tree. You might be better to work with a good parabolic if you 
cannot get closer.

Adding 24bits is not the cheap way.

> That's true, by turnng down the mental comparative processes. Yet the 
> same comparative processes can open up so much, they're hard to 
> sacrifice.  In surround, I cut down to mono for some middle ground 
> and foreground elements--especially when the source is moving.
> Rob D.

You can still focus on a single sound in stereo, in fact it's easier to 
do so. I'd never cut a moving source to mono, you can pan with it when 
you record if you want that effect.

I'm not sure I'd say you are turning down the mental comparative 
processes. They are virtually inactive when listening to mono, swing 
into action when they get a natural stereo field to work with.

Makes me curious if music, with it's current emphasis on mixing panned 
mono to pseudostereo, has gone off where they don't listen in a natural 
way anymore.

Walt




________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Admin

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the naturerecordists mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU