naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

new recorder - mic pre factors

Subject: new recorder - mic pre factors
From: Rob Danielson <>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 09:21:35 -0500
Thanks for the clarifcation Klas.  There is
myth-busting to do. Last night I came across,

http://www.digitraxx.com/ma_dmp3.html

Any professional recording engineer will tell you
that quality microphone/instrument preamps are
just as important as the microphones themselves.
Unfortunately, the preamps found in most
affordable mixers don't do justice to the rest of
your gear=8A and most high-quality preamps cost
more than your computer. That's why we made the
affordable new DMP3.

As for other factors that only a expensive pre
can afford in addition: headroom and distortion,
in the 20+ years I've been recording, I've lost
maybe 3 minutes of sound from not having enough
headroom and even though I play the trumpet, no
one has ever encouraged me to record it.
Rob D.

  =3D =3D=3D

At 1:50 PM +0200 7/28/05, Klas Strandberg wrote:
>"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 an=
d
>>  >> 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 an=
d
>>  >> 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 package=
s
>>  > 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 mak=
e
>>  > 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 an=
d
>>  > 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 an=
d
>>  > 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 m=
y
>>  > $.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]
>
>
>
>"Microphones are not ears,
>Loudspeakers are not birds,
>A listening room is not nature."
>Klas Strandberg
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Rob Danielson
Film Department
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

<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