At 2:00 PM -0400 7/21/05, Walter Knapp wrote:
>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 recommendin=
g
>>>>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?
All of the tests try to allow one to evaluate specifc mic-preamp
combinations. I'm happy to incude any mic folks can send me to
include. I used the Rode NT1As in this test because it has less self
noise than any other mic(s) I have. Thats been confirmed by my tests
and Eric's report he posted. A low noise source is key for a test
like this when pre noise is part of the puzzle.
Aren't you impressed by how good the Sony HiMD pre tests!?
I'm in agreement with you about the importance of mics. Steven and
others use only one pair of mics and mastering is really important as
to how we come to know their work and their subjects. Just pointing
out that mastering is a quality factor too.
Rob D.
>Walt
>
>
> T
--
Rob Danielson
Film Department
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|