At 1:14 PM -0400 7/20/05, Walter Knapp wrote:
>From: "Rich Peet" <>
>
>>
>> I second Robs contributions and I will never be the one to say a mkh
>> is a beginners mic. His work has helped me along more than I can say.
>
>Beginners vary a lot, so I'd not say something so absolute. I've worked
>with quite a few beginners who had the means to buy whatever they
>wanted, and did not want to do the usual step system of buy and replace.
>For them, the MKH should definitely be considered, leaving it out of
>discussion is a crime. If a beginner is in that boat, it's actually a
>bigger challenge to advise them than just pointing them at a inexpensive
>MD and a cheap mic.
>
>A high quality mic makes it so much easier to get good recordings. One
>could say that beginners should suffer first before having it easy. But
>I don't believe that. A beginner can use a MKH just as easily as a lower
>quality mic, there is nothing magical to learn. Either mic will take the
>same learning. But quality results from the beginning will help keep
>interest up. Many beginners give up when they cannot produce recordings
>like the pro CD's they listen to. While it's not the only cause, buying
>too low on the quality scale is often part of that.
>
>For a beginner considering jumping straight into expensive equipment, my
>question has to do with commitment. They have to look into themselves
>and ask if nature recording is going to be a long term commitment for
>them, or if it's just a passing fancy, or something casual that they
>will do while really being interested in something else. If one is
>certain that they are in it for the long haul, then the cost of MKH mics
>will be covered over a very long period of use.
>
>They should also ask what quality of sound is their goal. I know the
>reply from a good many, pro CD quality.
I agree that focus on a final product is very important in terms of
defining specific "quality" requirements. No matter the product,
good front end mics may be the most important single factor. That
said, there are many kinds of CD's and differing opinions about
quality and how to achieve it. As I'm sure you are aware, for
products like those made by Steven Feld (and others, some who
participate on this list), there' also a careful "mastering" stage to
make sure the recordings are faithful while being very listenable and
enjoyable. So, high end mics-pres, alone, may not lead to the results
they have in mind if they are regarding these products as "Pro CD's."
[I do not wish to imply that what these folks are doing is out of
touch/too expensive for people who want to do it themselves-- just
say that mastering is a possible component that significantly affects
quality too.]
<snip>
>
>It's a bit funny, because there seems to be no qualms about recommending
>the highly expensive Sound Devices recorders to beginners.
http://www.uwm.edu/~type/Mic%20Preamps/RollsPB224-%3eHiMDMicPreClip.wav
(audio only with just the two clips)
(1) Two NT1A's run directly to a 722
at ~ 4.5 seconds in:
(2) The same mics/set-up routed through a $70 Rolls pb224 portable
phantom power supply directly to a NH900 HiMD recorder's 3.5mm stereo
mic input.
The whole test in a quicktime movie format is here:
http://www.uwm.edu/~type/Mic%20Preamps/RollsPB224-%3eHiMDMicPreAIF.mov
There are some consistency and compatibility tests to run in order to
see whether the Rolls unit will work as well with many consumer grade
MD/DAT mic pres and it would be prudent for us to try a good number
of other phantom-powered mics before wide announcement, but it
seems to me that we _may_ soon be considering a much wider range of
recorders, mics and budgets as capable, low noise, high gain
recording systems.
> Then limiting
>the mic recommending to cheap or lower end options is not at all
>balanced. Tell the beginner about the full range of mic options if you
>are going to do it for recorders.
>
>It's also important when telling a beginner about the latest mic that
>folks are salivating over that there is no or little track record for
>the mic. Buying it is a risk. You are asking a beginner to take a risk
>often to be your test case. In comparison you can tell a beginner that
>MKH mics have been used for all kinds of nature recording in all kinds
>of outdoor conditions all over the world and been extremely reliable.
>They produce excellent recordings with little or no worry from the
>recordist. This has been going on for 40 years or so. If you want the
>risk free solution to high quality mic choice for nature recording it's
>clearly the MKH.
>
>A MKH is not a beginners mic, it's a mic that works for everybody from
>beginner to pro. Anyone can use one and benefit from it's abilities, no
>permission from the pro's needed.
I'm not against people investing in MKH at all. I'm for people being
aware of other options. Rob D.
>
>Walt
>
--
Rob Danielson
Film Department
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|