"You must have a good mic preamp, otherwise your recordings get too noisy".
I have heard that statement since I started recording back in the 60's.
But is it true?
That is the point of this discussion.
The statement is not true. And it is only a question of logic:
A condensor microphone already has an internal mic pre-amp.
Looking at the Rode NT1A, - for example - this preamp is "better" than the=
capsule. Errors with the frequency curve and other un-linear errors are
caused by the acoustical characteristics of the membrane / electrode
design, not by the electronic's.
So - again - the microphone already has a "perfect", fully optimized
mic-preamp.
All condensor microphones / electrets have such internal pre-amps, even if=
some such pre-amps are not as good as the Rode / Sennheiser etc.
But if the internal pre-amps of cheap microphones are noisy, the noise is
already there, and all you can do with a HQ pre-amp is to amplify it. (Can=
anyone deny this???)
The internal microphone preamp could (in theory) produce a line output!!
Should you still connect it to a HQ microphone amplifier? Guess not....
So why isn't it producing a line output?
Answer: You can't drive a line amplifier on phantom power. The available
current is too low. You will get distortion.
But running on phantom power, - the capsule/ output amp combination can
still produce high enough voltage (mv/Pa) to override the noise of the
following preamp!
Even if it is a noisy preamp!
IF YOU CONNECT SUCH A HIGH OUTPUT MICROPHONE TO A NOISY PREAMP - YOU WILL
STILL HEAR ONLY THE MICROPHONE SELF-NOISE, PRODUCED BY THE MEMBRANE/
ELECTRODE DESIGN AND THE INTERNAL ELECTRONICS!
It is just logics.
When not using phantom power, but a battery or plug-in-power - the
available voltage and current is still enough to give enough low-noise
(dbA) and high output (mv/Pa) using modern FET-IC's for less than a dollar=
/ each!
Sennheiser ME series, running on 1,5 volt battery - or the Telinga EM23
running on plug in power - will still have enough high output to override
the self-noise of a typical MiniDisc mic pre.
I say again: You cannot improve self-noise figures with a HQ mic-preamp,
unless you are using the wrong microphone! (Low self noise with a too low
output (mv/Pa)).
What you can improve with a HQ pre-amp, is distortion figures and headroom.=
The pro music studio guys and the pro on-location technicians, film-makers=
etc, need that.
Conclusion: I do not deny that there is a use of HQ mic preamps. What I do=
deny is the statement: "You must have a good mic preamp, otherwise your
recordings get too noisy". It is a 20 year old statement which lives on by=
itself.
A HQ mic preamp is suitable when you want balanced inputs and phantom
power, to drive certain mic's, or just because you want XLR plugs because
you don't trust the small mini-jacks. Fine!
Or if you want a new toy! That is fine too.
But don't spend money on a HQ mic preamp because you want to improve
self-noise figures!
Klas.
At 19:44 2005-07-27, you wrote:
>I am not sure what your point is (more than some discussion why you
>are satisfied what you have but at the same time would buy more
>expensive gear if you could afford it).
>
>While I have not measured the Sony MD model Rob is discussing I did
>at one time put my old HP Audio Analyzer and some other tools to good
>use measuring a few other consumer MD:s in hope I could use them
>instead of some heavier recorder. And there is a big difference. Not
>so much noise level as in various forms of distortion that is
>especially apparent when you feed in short stereo bursts (probably
>the powersupply lines in a consumer MD is not stiff enough - or its a
>multo-op-amp chip sharing a single supply-source) and I also looked
>at the noise characteristic of some key components in the circuits
>(which usually end up matching the actual sonic character og the
>preamp pretty well).
>
>Now this may not be important at all when you want to record a
>specific object with a highly directional mic. Noise matters more
>than anything and you are not listening to the end result in a way
>(and on replay equipment) that you would notice most of the
>shortcomings.
>
>But in other types of recording capturing as much as possible of the
>beauty and impact of a natural soundscape makes a real diff. And here
>you probably need any help good quality equipment may give you.
>
>The internet is always so full of opinions and "advice".
>Fieldrecordings are made for different purposes and with different
>scope and one simply cannot generalize equipment advice like often
>done ... there is no perfect (or "best") mic, pre or recorder on the
>market - you simply have to balance your choice to your own personal
>preferences, budget and demand. You cannot always rely on the
>equipment choice of others - I have heard some really fascinating
>fieldrecordings made on portable analog audio cassette recorders, but
>that does not make me rush out looking to buy one.
>
>
>
>
>
>27 jul 2005 kl. 17.25 skrev Curt Olson:
>
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> > "Microphones are not ears,
> > Loudspeakers are not birds,
> > A listening room is not nature."
> > Klas Strandberg
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>"Microphones are not ears,
>Loudspeakers are not birds,
>A listening room is not nature."
>Klas Strandberg
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
Telinga Microphones, Botarbo,
S-748 96 Tobo, Sweden.
Phone & fax int + 295 310 01
email:
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|