naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

PS-2, M-S (was smallest recording solution

Subject: PS-2, M-S (was smallest recording solution
From: "Rob Danielson" danielson_rob
Date: Sat Jun 10, 2006 10:45 pm (PDT)
At 3:14 AM +0000 6/11/06, cfmspencer wrote:
>
>the Oade Bros. website offers Hosa's comparative product (albeit a
>1/4" version) coupled with a Denecke ps-2 phantom power unit as a
>low cost mic preamp.
>
>http://www.oade.com/microphones/low_cost_mic_pre.html

Even though this Oade page suggests to use the PS-2 "with a Sony 
MiniDisc Recorder, Edirol R1 or any stereo minijack input recorder 
and get the quality of phantom powered studio microphones without the 
cost of studio mic preamps,"
I found that the Denecke PS-2 was one of the units that I could not 
get to work well with either older MD or newer Hi-MD recorders' mic 
inputs without substantial noise. I tried a number of solutions 
including external powering and caps which helped a tad, but the 
Rolls and Art tested with considerably less noise. I believe, Allan 
Haighton had a PS-2 for his HiMD's and has since gone with an Art 
unit. Perhaps the Hosa addresses the problem I was having with the 
PS-2, I cannot say.

>
>
>it seems I should start with great microphones no matter what else I
>might decide downstream.  low noise / high output mics might lessen
>the possible need for high quality preamps.

Or vice versa, as you suggested before. The noise from the 
(camcorder) pre can mask the quality of the mics- especially when one 
records with high gain in quiet locations.

Its often hard to judge which device, mic or pre, the noise is coming 
from. To get a sense of this with a mic pre/recorder combination, I 
first run mics with very low noise (Rode NT1A's) into the 
pre/recorder I want to test and then the same mics into into a SD 
Message: 722. 
Subject: I match playback volume of the sound files and listen to the 
differences. Then I run the mics I want to test into both recorders 
(both at highest gain). match the playback levels and compare them.

>  per Rob's spreadsheet,
>it is wasy to see why the MKH series are so popular.
>
>thanks Rob for the suggestion to try the MKH-30 in M-S config.
>after listening to some recent recordings made with my NTG-2, it
>seems as if I will appreciate stereo recordings more than mono.

Yes, definitely.

>
>it also seems that M-S is the simplest manner to get good stereo,
>are there significant issues/downsides to using M-S?

For compact stereo with "shotgun" and "ambience" capabilities at the 
same time, there are not many options. I like being able to shape the 
stereo image quite a bit in post. Another way to explore this 
question is to search "M-S" in the on-line archives e.g.
http://bioacoustics.cse.unsw.edu.au/archives/cgi-bin/namazu.cgi?query=m-s&submit=Search%21&idxname=naturerecordists&max=10&result=normal&sort=score

or"
http://tinyurl.com/fnlgj

There are quite a few matches but you can roll through them pick-out 
specific strings to follow.


>
>after being impressed in an audition of the MKH-416 at B&H, I had
>originally thought of getting an MKH-418S stereo mic, but it seems
>the side mic is rather noisy for ambient recordings at 22db.
>
>what is the ideal pattern for the Mid mic?

The only one I know of that works for the side mic is what is called 
a "figure 8."  There aren't that many choice in fig 8's mic with 
small diaphragms.  Rob D.

>
>cheers,
>clay
>







<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