naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: new recorder - mic pre factors

Subject: Re: new recorder - mic pre factors
From: Curt Olson <>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 10:25:25 -0500
Rob Danielson wrote:

> No doubt people who can afford 722's and Lunatecs will tend to hear
> the improvement in quality they're dollars are paying for.
>
> <snip>
>
> The common belief  is that "premiere," low noise, high gain, good
> sound mic preamplification comes only at a cost either in a great
> recorder or a great outboard pre.
>
> <snip>
>
> Klas Strandberg insisted for years that the chips used in the consumer
> grade pres shouldn't be the source of this low performance--that
> indeed they are high quality in themselves and that the the noise and
> output performance of th mics  _should_ be the limiting factor.
>
> <snip>

Klas Stromberg clarified:

> Just like to add and remind:
>
> A costly preamp is needed when you want low noise, low distortion and
> good headroom!
> All three.

Prior to last week I would have kept quiet on this to avoid a firestorm
of controversy. But the atmosphere has improved, so I'll toss out an
overall perspective I've arrived at over the course of 30 years as an
audio engineer/producer.

In my career, I've made thousands upon thousands of nationally
syndicated network radio broadcasts, engineered hundreds of live
concert broadcasts for network radio (most of them very large and
complex), recorded & mixed scores of studio albums and jingle packages
for local, regional and national clients. On only three or four
occasions have I ever gotten my hands on the most serious high-end gear
that's available. I say this not to pump myself up, but rather to make
the point that it is absolutely possible to achieve excellent results
with lower-to-mid-level equipment. I've had little choice in the
matter, and it has forced me to understand the whole process inside and
out and to develop good working practices and techniques. By contrast,
a studio owner I know rather well proudly promotes his collection of
exotic microphones (including a number of rare ancient Telefunken and
Neumann models) and preamps, but routinely puts out poor recordings. Go
figure.

Again, I say this is only to offer a perspective. If you don't think
you can afford a Sound Devices 722 or a Lunatec mic pre or a set of
Sennheiser MKH mics right now, don't despair. As Klas has insisted and
Rob has confirmed, the Sony MD mic pres are not the weak link in the
chain that many have thought them to be. Dan Dugan, who is very
familiar with high-end audio gear, called our attention to the
inexpensive Shure 183 as a fine mic for nature recordists. I totally
agree. (But I've discovered that *HOW* you deploy them makes all the
difference in the world. Again, it comes down to working practices and
techniques.)

I don't despise anyone who has made a commitment to top-line gear.
Believe me, I have a long wish list of my own. But for now, I've
decided to do the best I can with stuff I could afford to replace if it
ever gets lost, stolen or damaged in the field. There. Now you have my
$.02.

I'm anxious to see if the new M-Audio recorder lives up to its promise.
If so, it'll definitely shoot to the top of my short list.

Curt Olson



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

<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