On 18/08/2010, at 2:21 AM, myles.thompson wrote:
> I have an SQN 4 Series II and a Fostex FR 2 LE. Thanks to your remarks I =
gather this configuration isn't ideal for wildlife - given the noise of the=
Emesser mic, and the directional characteristics of the 416, but I'm going=
to give it a try and if all fails, sell everything and work out another so=
lution (have considered Schoepps ORTF and Neumann binaural).
>
> Given that I'm persevering with this setup, I suppose I should get rid of=
the Y loom and run two separate cables from the M and S mics so that I hav=
e two separate channels for M and S? Or can I keep the Y loom? According to=
Ambient, the manufacturer of the Emesser figure of 8 mic, the Y loom 'outp=
uts both M and S signals in a standard balanced 5 pin XLR' - but I'm not q=
uite sure what that means (and I haven't heard back from them yet). Are the=
M and S still separated somehow when they run through the 5-pin XLR into t=
he mixer? How will I distinguish the two channels when I bring the files in=
to the editing suite?
>
> I'm very keen to get this up and running.
Hi Myles,
The SQN 4 SII is by all accounts a very fine mixer, and I think of all your=
kit this is the last thing I would want to sell. List member Grant Finlay=
( http://naturesounds.co.nz/ ) uses an SQN 4 with a oade modified Marantz=
PMD620 with excellent results. Chris Watson ( http://www.chriswatson.net/ =
) uses an SQN mixer in front of a Sound Devices recorder, which really says=
something about the quality of these mixers. The FR2-LE is a good perform=
er without a mixer in front, but SQN, Sound Devices, et al are really a ste=
p up in sound quality from prosumer recorders like FR2-LE and HDP2. The lis=
t tends to fixate on self-noise, and while this is important consideration,=
once you get to a point where the preamps don't audibly degrade the mic's =
a range of other performance factors come into play. My experience upgradin=
g from a HDP2 to a Sound Devices 722 was that there was a noticeable improv=
ement in the clarity and "preciseness" of the preamps while using the same =
mic, so I feel there are definitely overall improvements to be had by using=
a mixer in front of a prosumer recorder. The downside is that you have to=
deal with handling and powering two boxes instead of one. In some respect=
s an "all in one" recorder with M/S decoding would be easier to handle in t=
he field but your SQN/FR2LE setup should allow you to make outstanding reco=
rdings. If you decide to sell the mixer/recorder it would be worth looking =
at either the Nagra LB or Sound Devices 702. I understand that in Europe t=
he LB is a bit cheaper than the SD702, and there is a body of opinion on va=
rious forums that the LB is a better sounding recorder, and has better menu=
layout than the Sound Devices recorders. It would be worth looking at the =
two.
If you are based in the UK it would be worthwhile getting in touch with the=
wildlife sound recording society - http://www.wildlife-sound.org/
The 5 pin XLR on the SQN is an output not input so you have really no choic=
e but to use separate cables or a second y-cable to break into 2x3pin XLR=
at the mixer. The 3 pin XLR's have signal, return, and ground in SQN term=
inology - the 5 pin has a common ground on one pin, and a separate signal =
and return for each channel This means you can run a stereo pair down a sin=
gle "star-quad" cable, using the four wires for signal and return and the s=
hield for the shared ground . It's fairly common to use this kind of set u=
p ( Y -> cable -> Y) as it makes long stereo runs much easier to handle.
Having checked the specs of the emesser - it's probably a reasonable choice=
for capturing ambience while using the 416 to focus on a specific sound so=
urce. Again, if you were planning to sell the 416/emesser , I'd suggest y=
ou look at the Sennheiser MKH30/MKH40 m/s setup as this is well proven for =
wildlife sound recording and used by many of the professional recordists on=
this list with outstanding results.
regards
Paul
|