From: Rob Danielson <>
> 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.]
A quote from the pdf Raimund pointed out:
"The microphone is the first link in every chain of electroacoustic
transmission. Problems caused by poor inherent characteristics or
unfavorable microphone placement can seldom be corrected by subsequent
processing equipment."
Mastering is very important in the artificial multi-channel "stereo" of
the music world. It's of far less relative importance in nature
recording where one mic or mic combo provides the entire track. Unless
one is practicing the music world's artificial "stereo" mixing. Even
there, it's the mics that will make or break the recording.
But the mic will always be important. If you use a noisy mic, every one
of your recordings will have a unacceptable noise background. No amount
of technique will change that. If you use a high quality mic like the
MKH, then many of your recordings will be as clear or clearer than the
final CD right out of the recorder. So a beginner can have the
experience of recording a Pro CD quality track if he chooses the right
mics. Choose the wrong mics and a million dollars worth of mastering
gear won't make a bit of difference.
Your talk of mastering is a red herring. It has nothing to do with mic
quality. I'm quite sure every person who does mastering will tell you
mic quality is paramount. Mastering just attempts to not mess up that
quality too much, it can do little to improve it.
>>>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.
That does not mean that MKH mics are incapable, in fact it does not say
anything at all about them. They are the standard you are trying to
reach. Even if you succeed, the MKH will be the standard by which that
success is judged.
Note the test you refer to is about recorders and pre's. Though you did
represent the Rode as the ideal test mic for this. Have you considered
that maybe you hear little difference because the mic is the limiting
factor? Or your sound reproduction system, or your ears? Or the subject
you recorded?
Walt
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|