Audio interfaces with robust preamps
Colin Henein
What reasonably priced audio interfaces (usb, usb2, or firewire) have
the most gain-boosting mic preamps?
Back Story:
I have just bought a Studio Projects LSD2 microphone. (It's a stereo
microphone with adjustable angle between 2 vertically coincident
condenser elements.) My plan is to use it to record live concerts using
mid-side or blumlein techniques. I had planned to get a firewire or USB
audio interface with microphone preamps and go mobile with my iBook for
recording.
The problem I have run into is that the audio interfaces I've tried
can't give me enough gain to get anything out of this microphone for
room recording. In order to get half-decent levels I have to crank the
gain up to at least 90%. Somewhere around 85% gain the interfaces I've
tried produce a lot of noise, and some high-pitched hum as well.
I've tested the mic on an old and bulky analog Yamaha mixing board that
does phantom power. It works fine, and the board's gain knob only needs
to be turned to about 50% to get great whole-room levels. No noise. No
hum. So it doesn't seem to be the microphone. It seems to be the
interface. I don't want to carry the bulky board to concerts though.
The two interfaces I've tried are the M-Audio Firewire 410 and the
PreSonus FireBox. The 410 was a poorly designed piece of crap with bad
software. The PreSonus was ok. Neither could boost the volume of the
microphone without maxing out their respective pre-amps and introducing
unacceptable amounts of noise.
Is there an interface out there that has onboard preamps with the power
to boost the LSD2 to the point that I can reliably use this as a room
mic? I really hadn't budgeted for a separate mic pre at this point.
emil
emil
"Colin Henein" <google...@juicer.orange-carb.org> wrote in message
news:1130991138.4...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Travis Garrison
Colin Henein wrote:
> Simple Question:
>
> What reasonably priced audio interfaces (usb, usb2, or firewire) have
> the most gain-boosting mic preamps?
For what it's worth, I've done some 2-track concert recordings with the
preamps in my MOTU 828 when outboard pres weren't available. I always
managed to get decent levels without tons of noise. I would assume
that the preamps in the newer 828mkII are the same if not better.
Brand new this might be a little above your budget, but the original
828's are pretty reasonable on eBay nowadays.
Travis Garrison
Anahata
>
> The problem I have run into is that the audio interfaces I've tried
> can't give me enough gain to get anything out of this microphone for
> room recording. In order to get half-decent levels I have to crank the
> gain up to at least 90%. Somewhere around 85% gain the interfaces I've
> tried produce a lot of noise, and some high-pitched hum as well.
>
> I've tested the mic on an old and bulky analog Yamaha mixing board that
> does phantom power. It works fine, and the board's gain knob only needs
> to be turned to about 50% to get great whole-room levels. No noise. No
> hum. So it doesn't seem to be the microphone. It seems to be the
> interface. I don't want to carry the bulky board to concerts though.
A condenser mic should give you plenty of level. Maximum gain on almost
any preamp is something you'd only need for dynamics (especially ribbons).
I suspect your mic draws more current on the phantom power than most.
Many preamps can't fulfil the 10mA DIN requirement, and some don't even
produce 48V with no load. That's a possible reason why you're getting
low signal level, hum and noise. (Hum at 100(UK) or 120(US) Hz can be a
symptom of the P48 supply dropping out of regulation)
Anahata
Mike Rivers
Colin Henein wrote:
> Simple Question:
>
> What reasonably priced audio interfaces (usb, usb2, or firewire) have
> the most gain-boosting mic preamps?
Simple answer: The one with the highest gain and lowest EIN. Now, go
out and find that. You'll have trouble.
The reason why is that the ones that you'll run into most easily are
designed for sitting on a desk next to a computer while you're wailing
away a couple of inches from a mic.
> I have just bought a Studio Projects LSD2 microphone. (It's a stereo
> microphone with adjustable angle between 2 vertically coincident
> condenser elements.) My plan is to use it to record live concerts using
> mid-side or blumlein techniques. I had planned to get a firewire or USB
> audio interface with microphone preamps and go mobile with my iBook for
> recording.
I, too, have an LSD2, and it's definitely not a "high output" condenser
mic. I use it withy a Mackie mixer, either a VLZ-Pro or Onyx, and for
the rare occasions where I use a computer as a field recorder, I send
the line outputs of that mixer to the line inputs of my Digigram VX
Pocket card. The Onyx with the Firewire option card works OK, too, but
there isn't enough gain to use just the direct outputs, I have to go
through the bus and crank up the bus Firewire output all the way. But
at least it isn't objectionably noisy.
The only small USB interface that I've tried is the TASCAM US-122, and
while it's a very smartly designed box, the mic preams don't have a lot
of gain and they do get noisy when you run them wide open. You might
look at the more serious products like from Sound Devices. Since
you're using a Mac, you might want to look at the Metric Halo ULN2.
It's got really good and quiet preamps, but they only support Mac OS.
Joe Kesselman
> The problem I have run into is that the audio interfaces I've tried
> can't give me enough gain to get anything out of this microphone for
> room recording. In order to get half-decent levels I have to crank the
> gain up to at least 90%. Somewhere around 85% gain the interfaces I've
> tried produce a lot of noise, and some high-pitched hum as well.
Stupid question, just to get it out of the way: The interfaces *were*
providing phantom power to the mike, right? At a full 48V? (See recent
flamage about why lower voltages may work but will probably produce
lower signal level.)
Colin Henein
> You might
> look at the more serious products like from Sound Devices. Since
> you're using a Mac, you might want to look at the Metric Halo ULN2.
> It's got really good and quiet preamps, but they only support Mac OS.
Thanks for your reply. I'll look into the Sound Devices line. The
Metric Halo looks great, but is well above my price range right now.
Perhaps another way to go would be to buy back the firebox, and go with
an external pre. Do you have any suggestions for reasonably priced mic
pres that would be decent (or half decent)? What's the best way to go
about picking those?
Cheers,
Colin
Chevdo
I have the same problem with my Roland Studio Pack interface. But as people
have pointed out on this newsgroup, if you're recording at 24bits you don't
need really hot levels. The preamps only generate noise when they're cranked,
if they're turned down slightly they don't generate any noise, so I just record
lower level signals, and I'm not losing anything by doing so because
microphones don't have a whole lot of dynamic range anyway. In your case
you're recording a live event so just record it low enough to avoid noise, then
normalize afterwards. The signal will be nearly identical to what you'd have
recorded if you had been able to record hot levels, except there won't be any
noise.
In article <1130991138.4...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
google...@juicer.orange-carb.org says...
Scott Dorsey
>Colin Henein wrote:
>> Simple Question:
>>
>> What reasonably priced audio interfaces (usb, usb2, or firewire) have
>> the most gain-boosting mic preamps?
>
>Simple answer: The one with the highest gain and lowest EIN. Now, go
>out and find that. You'll have trouble.
>
>The reason why is that the ones that you'll run into most easily are
>designed for sitting on a desk next to a computer while you're wailing
>away a couple of inches from a mic.
Yup. However, take a look at the Lavry.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Nate Najar
Colin Henein
noisy after 60. That seems to be about the same as the FireWire 410. I
need to do better than that.
What I don't understand is why my Yamaha 1242 board can get such great
performance at only halfway through its gain adjustment while all these
interfaces and external preamps seem to be noisy and max out well
before I get any decent levels.
The Yamaha doesn't quote its gain in the same way. It says the gain
control "adjusts the input sensitivity between -60 dB (0.775 mV) and
-20 dB (77.5 mV)." It says the inputs "accept nominal 50 ohm - 600 ohm
microphones."
Could the difference between the board and the interfaces be due to
impedance matching? I'm ignorant about impedance.
Scott Dorsey
>The RNP has 66 dB of gain boost, and the review I read said it was
>noisy after 60. That seems to be about the same as the FireWire 410. I
>need to do better than that.
Then you will need to spend money. I suspect, however, that the
RNP will be a lot quieter than you expect, because I suspect that the
people making those statements have different standards than you do.
>What I don't understand is why my Yamaha 1242 board can get such great
>performance at only halfway through its gain adjustment while all these
>interfaces and external preamps seem to be noisy and max out well
>before I get any decent levels.
Because the preamps on those interfaces are afterthoughts that are
built with a couple of cents worth of parts, while your 1242 preamp
stage probably costs as much as a dollar or two.
>The Yamaha doesn't quote its gain in the same way. It says the gain
>control "adjusts the input sensitivity between -60 dB (0.775 mV) and
>-20 dB (77.5 mV)." It says the inputs "accept nominal 50 ohm - 600 ohm
>microphones."
Right, because unless you are pulling the signal out of the insert (which
might be a good idea, actually), you're normally running the signal
through a whole lot of different stages, so knowing just the gain of
the preamp stage is not very useful. But if you know the input level
AND the output level, you can calculate the gain of the whole console.
>Could the difference between the board and the interfaces be due to
>impedance matching? I'm ignorant about impedance.
No, it's because you're expecting too much out of cheap consumer electronics.
Mike Rivers
Colin Henein wrote:
> Perhaps another way to go would be to buy back the firebox, and go with
> an external pre. Do you have any suggestions for reasonably priced mic
> pres that would be decent (or half decent)?
You have to look at the same specifications on a dedicated mic preamp
that you do for an audio interface with mic inputs. The good part is
that they're easier to find and might be more meaningful on a
preamp-only box.
The FMR Really Nice Mic Preamp is a favorite around here, but one of
the design tradeoffs, is a little more noise for its interesting sound
coloration. You don''t want noise and you don't want coloration so for
your particular applicaiton, it might not be such a good choice.
Honestly, I really don't have any suggestions for you other than to
save up some more money and get something that will do the job you
need. Gain some recording experience with the mic and the Firebox or
some other inexpensive interface, and just live with the noise until
you can afford a serious preamp. If you're recording music, it won't be
so bad. If you're recording quiet nature sounds, you have a much more
stringent requirement than for music.
Colin Henein
> of cheap consumer electronics.
Sigh. Fair enough I guess.
Colin Henein
>save up some more money and get something that will do the job you
>need.
One question I've gotta ask at this point. Should I consider returning
the LSD2 in favour of some other microphone?
I went with the LSD2 because I like Blumlein, and want to use M-S. I
appreciated the flexibility that that microphone offered. And I didn't
have to create a monster (like I did at
http://www.orange-carb.org/~cmh/SacredHarp/recordings.html ) every time
I wanted to make a stereo recording. And it was within reach in terms
of investment.
I'm not wedded to that mic, though, and I could return it within 30
days if there was something better that would be more compatible with
entry level gear.
I'm not wedded to the condenser aspect, but I did like the stereo
near-coincidence and the opportunity to try different stereo setups.
Mike Rivers
Colin Henein wrote:
> One question I've gotta ask at this point. Should I consider returning
> the LSD2 in favour of some other microphone?
No. It's a fine microphone, and the microphone isn't your problem. Your
problem is your budget for the rest of the gear to complete the
recording system. They don't make things like that old Yamaha mixer any
more, at leat not for $100. You just have to spend more money in order
to get performance worthy of the mic. I can't think of any other mic
that will let you record in the classic Blumlien configuration at
anywhere near that price.
Paul Stamler
No; mic preamps don't operate on the principle of matched impedance anyway.
My guess is that the designers of cheap audio interfaces have a primary
market in mind, and that market is concert tapers, sub rosa and otherwise.
They operate, typically, in an environment of very loud sound, often with
high-output condenser microphones, so they've tailored their interfaces
accordingly. Besides, it's harder (or more expensive) to get high gain at
low noise and distortion. So they've designed gear that'll work adequately
for their target market, at their target price point. The Yamaha, on the
other hand, is a mixing board designed to be used in a wide variety of
circumstances, and it's designed accordingly.
I'd say a mic preamp is your best solution. You may also want to look at
higher-output microphones.
Peace,
Paul
hank alrich
> Is there an interface out there that has onboard preamps with the power
> to boost the LSD2 to the point that I can reliably use this as a room
> mic? I really hadn't budgeted for a separate mic pre at this point.
Metric Halo Mobile IO ULN-2
http://www.mhlabs.com/metric_halo/products
--
ha
hank alrich
> The RNP has 66 dB of gain boost, and the review I read said it was
> noisy after 60. That seems to be about the same as the FireWire 410. I
> need to do better than that.
There is no comparison between the quality of sound from the RNP and
that from the 410. The 410's spec sheet came froma marketing department
and the RNP's came from a bench test.
What you want to do is probably not availabile for the money you think
you want to spend.
--
ha
Kurt Albershardt
Definitely - but may not fit his definition of 'reasonable.'
See if you (Colin) can arrange to audition a Sound Devices USBpre
<http://www.sounddevices.com/products/usbpremaster.htm>
Street price is around $550 (or was when I last looked) but they do show
up used here and on eBay from time to time. Preamps are not as good as
those in the SD mixers or recorders but far better than those in most
other laptop interfaces.
You might also ask in the Oade forum - Doug and several of the regulars
there have LSD2's and ought to be able to give you more ideas.
<http://www.oade.com/Tapers_Section/Forum/dcboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=100>
Jona Vark
"hank alrich" <walk...@thegrid.net> wrote in message
news:1h5g50x.5fbtcy1b43sbmN%walk...@thegrid.net...
> Colin Henein <google...@juicer.orange-carb.org> wrote:
>
> > The RNP has 66 dB of gain boost, and the review I read said it was
> > noisy after 60. That seems to be about the same as the FireWire 410. I
> > need to do better than that.
>
> There is no comparison between the quality of sound from the RNP and
> that from the 410. The 410's spec sheet came froma marketing department
> and the RNP's came from a bench test.
no bias from on' Hank there..
Of course M-Audio lets its marketing department generate their specs.
Everyone knows that.
Chevdo
google...@juicer.orange-carb.org says...
>
>> No, it's because you're expecting too much out
>> of cheap consumer electronics.
>
>Sigh. Fair enough I guess.
>
I can lead a horse to water, but this is the last time I'll be mentioning this
in this thread. The pre-amps on these audio interfaces are fine if you don't
crank them up all the way. You know as well as I do that the pre-amps are
quiet for most of the gain stage, just not the very top. The gain ramps up
really steep at the end and thats why you get the noise only when its cranked
but not if its not cranked. They designed it this way on purpose just in
case people need really high gain (at the expense of introducing noise).
Manufacturers designed the pre-amps in 24bit audio interfaces this way
because they know that you don't need to record really hot levels at 24bit.
This design is the best compromise to get good recordings with cheap pre-amps.
And many of the people who have responded to you know this, too, but would
prefer to babble on about you needing to shell out more money for 'pro'
equipment because they are professional wankers! They want people to think
that you can't get a good signal out of 'cheap consumer electronics'. A mic
pre-amp that will deliver a markedly better signal than the ones in the audio
interfaces will cost at least $1000 and the difference will still be
negligable (providing you use the pre-amps in the audio interface properly as I
described).
Colin Henein
pre that someone loaned me (Tube ultragain Mic 100). It has the
advantage of a labelled VU meter. (-24,-18,-12,-6,0,+6,+12). In order
to hit 0 on that scale I need 54 dB of gain (with reasonable test
program material: loud bluegrass/dance band music at "concert levels"
to my ears, 20 feet from a reasonable stereo).
I have talked to Brent at Studio Projects about the problem. He says,
in his opinion the microphone should be "melting the soundcard" at 54
dB of gain. In other words, he is quite surprised by the low levels.
But if the mic were defective it would be surprising that both elements
would be failing in a matched set...
I have started asking on taper boards (and thanks Kurt for the
reference to Oade... I will post there) and I only have one reply so
far, but he said that he's never gone over 22 dB or so with his LSD2.
So the plot thickens.
I have asked Studio Projects if they will send me another unit to try
side-by-side. I will keep you all updated. Thanks to everyone who has
made suggestions so far. They are all appreciated. Feel free to keep
them coming if you think of something!
Colin Henein
play with there is plenty of range for "digital zoom" of the audio. At
this point I want to be sure that my experience is in line with
expectations of others to make sure I don't have a defective component.
Your advice, though, is making me feel better about the possibility of
going back to the FireBox and enabling their digital 12 dB gain boost
to get around my problems.
Pooh Bear
Colin Henein wrote:
> Simple Question:
>
> What reasonably priced audio interfaces (usb, usb2, or firewire) have
> the most gain-boosting mic preamps?
>
> Back Story:
>
> I have just bought a Studio Projects LSD2 microphone. (It's a stereo
> microphone with adjustable angle between 2 vertically coincident
> condenser elements.) My plan is to use it to record live concerts using
> mid-side or blumlein techniques
< snip >
It sounds to me like you're using the mic quite some considerable distance
form the source and maybe recording purely acoustic music.
This requires more gain than may typically be available from the majority
of mic pres on the market.
It would help if you talked about the mic gain in dB btw instead of x% of
the control rotation. There is no standard for max gain and x% of it is
simply less helpful still since the 'control law' varies from mixer to
mixer.
Few of the lower cost ( but perfectly good ) mic pres on the market have >
60dB gain and this may be too low for you. Recording an acoustic performanc
at a distance may require up to 80dB of gain on the mic. This will be
inherently noisy ( background hiss ). You may wish to reconsider your
recording method.
Graham
Kurt Albershardt
>
> A mic pre-amp that will deliver a markedly better signal than the
> ones in the audio interfaces will cost at least $1000 and the
> difference will still be negligable (providing you use the pre-amps
> in the audio interface properly as I described).
Assuming that by 'markedly better signal' you mean 'markedly better
sound' I must emphatically reply that my experience does not agree.
Pooh Bear
Mike Rivers wrote:
> just live with the noise until
> you can afford a serious preamp
Actually, even the cheapest mic pres ( eg Behringer ) have their best noise
performance at high gain.
Indeed a Behringer mic pre will outperform a Neve mic pre of late 1980s
vintage noise wise.
A *serious* mic pre will not be likely to be any quieter. Technology has
found pretty much the noise floor for today's mic preamps regardless of cost.
There are actually very few mic pres today that are truly bad unless you go
out of your way to find one. As you noted the 'really nice mic preamp' is
actually *more* noisy than most on the market.
Graham
Bob Cain
Colin Henein wrote:
> Simple Question:
>
> What reasonably priced audio interfaces (usb, usb2, or firewire) have
> the most gain-boosting mic preamps?
>
> Back Story:
>
> I have just bought a Studio Projects LSD2 microphone.
What's its rated sensitivity? What would you estimate the SPL to be at
your recording point? I fully agree with Brent; if it's anywhere near
typical sensitivity for a condenser it should be "melting the soundcard"
at 54 dB gain.
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
Mike Rivers
Pooh Bear wrote:
> Actually, even the cheapest mic pres ( eg Behringer ) have their best noise
> performance at high gain.
>
> Indeed a Behringer mic pre will outperform a Neve mic pre of late 1980s
> vintage noise wise.
>
> A *serious* mic pre will not be likely to be any quieter. Technology has
> found pretty much the noise floor for today's mic preamps regardless of cost.
So you're suggesting that it's useless to use a microphone that needs
more than about 55 dB of gain if you don't want to hear hiss?
Mike Rivers
Colin Henein wrote:
> Update on this issue. I have tried it with a crummy (mono) Beringer mic
> pre that someone loaned me (Tube ultragain Mic 100). It has the
> advantage of a labelled VU meter. (-24,-18,-12,-6,0,+6,+12). In order
> to hit 0 on that scale I need 54 dB of gain (with reasonable test
> program material: loud bluegrass/dance band music at "concert levels"
> to my ears, 20 feet from a reasonable stereo).
That sounds about right to me. When cicadas were in season a couple of
years ago, I set my LSD-2 outside the door, cranked the gain up all the
way on my Great River preamp (65 dB) and managed to get the recording
level up to about -40 dBFS on peaks. But when I played it back, it
sounded just like standing at the back door listening to the cicadas.
When I normalized the recording, it was easy to hear traffic half a
mile away. (and it sounded like the cicadas were eating the house)
> I have started asking on taper boards (and thanks Kurt for the
> reference to Oade... I will post there) and I only have one reply so
> far, but he said that he's never gone over 22 dB or so with his LSD2.
Was he recording a rock concert, or a sacred harp convention? That
would be about right for a rock concert.
Go to your friendly local Radio Shack, buy a sound level meter, and
measure the SPL of what you're trying to record. Jot the number down,
then return the meter if you don't find it fascinating and educational.
When we know how loud the source is that you're trying to record, then
(and only then) can we make an assessment of whether your mic is
working right.
Arny Krueger
news:1131106801....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
I might agree on the grounds that if you use more than 55 dB
gain in a mic preamp, you get so close to the theoretical
noise floor of even a passive source, that you're almost
bound to hear some noise.
IOW if you have a mic preamp with a noise floor that is
within a few dB of the inherent noise of a resistor with the
same impedance as your mic, and you hear noise from a modern
mic preamp in your recording, then you're not going to make
that noise go away very easily by improving the preamp! ;-)
I suspect that the most of the people who really have a lot
of problems with mic preamp noise are those who are using
dynamic mics to record at some distance from the source. You
know, like trying to do a minimalist recording of a pipe
organ with 2 coincident SM57s.
Arny Krueger
> Back Story:
>
> I have just bought a Studio Projects LSD2 microphone.
> (It's a stereo microphone with adjustable angle between 2
> vertically coincident condenser elements.) My plan is to
> use it to record live concerts using mid-side or blumlein
> techniques. I had planned to get a firewire or USB audio
> interface with microphone preamps and go mobile with my
> iBook for recording.
Looking at http://www.studioprojects.com/lsd2.html
This mic has -38 dB sensitivity. This is *plenty*. In
contrast, a typical dynamic vocal mic might have 20 dB less
sensitivity.
> The problem I have run into is that the audio interfaces
> I've tried can't give me enough gain to get anything out
> of this microphone for room recording. In order to get
> half-decent levels I have to crank the gain up to at
> least 90%.
What are you calling "half-decent" levels. If you are doing
live recording, you should try to get your peaks up
around -10 dB, no more. Fix the levels in the mix when you
know what they actually are!
> Somewhere around 85% gain the interfaces I've
> tried produce a lot of noise, and some high-pitched hum
> as well.
Something must be broken.
> I've tested the mic on an old and bulky analog Yamaha
> mixing board that does phantom power. It works fine, and
> the board's gain knob only needs to be turned to about
> 50% to get great whole-room levels. No noise. No hum. So
> it doesn't seem to be the microphone. It seems to be the
> interface. I don't want to carry the bulky board to
> concerts though.
You have to be careful using mixing boards to compare mic
sensitivities. There are at last three cascaded volume
controls between the input and the output, and they work
together to create the impression of sensitivity.
> Is there an interface out there that has onboard preamps
> with the power to boost the LSD2 to the point that I can
> reliably use this as a room mic? I really hadn't budgeted
> for a separate mic pre at this point.
If you can't get recordings of a reasonable source that
peak at -10 with this mic, something is wrong.
Mike Rivers
Arny Krueger wrote:
> I suspect that the most of the people who really have a lot
> of problems with mic preamp noise are those who are using
> dynamic mics to record at some distance from the source. You
> know, like trying to do a minimalist recording of a pipe
> organ with 2 coincident SM57s.
It used to be that condenser mics, for the same SPL, had 10-15 dB
greater output than dynamic mics. If you were to compare a U47 with an
EV 654 you'd see this. The mic inputs on professional gear (broadcast
and studio) had enough gain to get a decent level out of a common
ribbon mic with either a close speaking voice (like a radio announcer),
a projecting singer, or an orchestra. Condenser mics of the day often
had to be padded down so as not to overload the input stage.
Also, things tended to be more integrated so you didn't have to worry
about matching levels bertween stages. Plug a mic into an Ampex 350 mic
input and you'd get the VU meter to hit 0 with almost any reasonable
input somewhere within the working range of the level control. But you
didn't know whether the "mic preamp" was putting out +24 dBu because
all you wanted to do was get a good on-scale meter reading. Along with
this, when the meter read 0 VU, the recorder's output wasn't +24 dBu,
it was more likely 20 dB lower. The recorder's distortion would start
to get unpleasant 10 dB higher than that, so even though equipment was
capable of 20 dB or more of headroom, ominal operating levels were
perhaps 10 dB lower than they are today.
Add to this the fact that less experienced people started using
recording equipment. As a result, modern condenser mics don't have
quite as much higher output as dynamic mics so the novices won't be
worried about wide variations in how they set up their equipment. Then
throw in lower internal noise floor (no tape hiss) and you start to see
why you can't get there from here.
Best advice is to be sure that there's nothing broken in the chain
(substituting another preamp and another mic of the same type is a good
approach) and then just work with what you get.
Arny Krueger
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> I suspect that the most of the people who really have a
>> lot of problems with mic preamp noise are those who are
>> using dynamic mics to record at some distance from the
>> source. You know, like trying to do a minimalist
>> recording of a pipe organ with 2 coincident SM57s.
>
> It used to be that condenser mics, for the same SPL, had
> 10-15 dB greater output than dynamic mics.
I think that as a rule, they still do! ;-)
>If you were to
> compare a U47 with an EV 654 you'd see this. The mic
> inputs on professional gear (broadcast and studio) had
> enough gain to get a decent level out of a common ribbon
> mic with either a close speaking voice (like a radio
> announcer), a projecting singer, or an orchestra.
> Condenser mics of the day often had to be padded down so
> as not to overload the input stage.
That was probably more due to the limited dynamic range of
the input stages of the day.
> Also, things tended to be more integrated so you didn't
> have to worry about matching levels bertween stages. Plug
> a mic into an Ampex 350 mic input and you'd get the VU
> meter to hit 0 with almost any reasonable input somewhere
> within the working range of the level control. But you
> didn't know whether the "mic preamp" was putting out +24
> dBu because all you wanted to do was get a good on-scale
> meter reading. Along with this, when the meter read 0 VU,
> the recorder's output wasn't +24 dBu, it was more likely
> 20 dB lower. The recorder's distortion would start to get
> unpleasant 10 dB higher than that, so even though
> equipment was capable of 20 dB or more of headroom,
> ominal operating levels were perhaps 10 dB lower than
> they are today.
What I see here is the fact that the Ampex 350 with built-in
mic pres was an integrated system of mic preamps and
recorder.
> Add to this the fact that less experienced people started
> using recording equipment. As a result, modern condenser
> mics don't have quite as much higher output as dynamic
> mics so the novices won't be worried about wide
> variations in how they set up their equipment. Then throw
> in lower internal noise floor (no tape hiss) and you
> start to see why you can't get there from here.
I think that there can still be pretty big differences in
terms of output when compareing condensor and dynamic mics.
I still remember picking my jaw off the table when I
compared the sensitivity of SM-57 and KSM-44s. I think the
difference is something like 27 dB, more or less. While they
aren't the latest greatest, they are both contemporary
microphones. And, there are lots of other modern mics that
are a lot like them.
> Best advice is to be sure that there's nothing broken in
> the chain (substituting another preamp and another mic of
> the same type is a good approach) and then just work with
> what you get.
Yes, its really nice to have a few mic preamps, a few dozen
mics, and maybe a console or three to use to compare. But
that doesn't help a lot of newbies.
Scott Dorsey
>
>Go to your friendly local Radio Shack, buy a sound level meter, and
>measure the SPL of what you're trying to record. Jot the number down,
>then return the meter if you don't find it fascinating and educational.
>When we know how loud the source is that you're trying to record, then
>(and only then) can we make an assessment of whether your mic is
>working right.
I just heard a report that Radio Shack no longer has the nifty analogue
SPL meter. Is this true?
Arny Krueger
news:dkfs3c$1bv$1...@panix2.panix.com
> Mike Rivers <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>>
>> Go to your friendly local Radio Shack, buy a sound level
>> meter, and measure the SPL of what you're trying to
>> record. Jot the number down, then return the meter if
>> you don't find it fascinating and educational. When we
>> know how loud the source is that you're trying to
>> record, then (and only then) can we make an assessment
>> of whether your mic is working right.
>
> I just heard a report that Radio Shack no longer has the
> nifty analogue SPL meter. Is this true?
says "in stock" for both the analog and digtital flavors
Colin Henein
> > nifty analogue SPL meter. Is this true?
>
> http://www.radioshack.com/family/index.jsp?categoryId=2032222&cp=2032057.2032187.2032193&parentPage=search&kw=spl+meter
>
> says "in stock" for both the analog and digtital flavors
Sadly, not in Canada. In Canada the Radio Shack stores have become
circuit city and all Radio Shack branded items have been sent back.
There is no ETA on a replacement. I'm going to drop by a local
thx-certified hi-fi place that does all their own installation and
service. I'm going to try to con them into lending me something, but
they may be unwilling... their stuff may be extremely valuable to them.
Mike Rivers
Scott Dorsey wrote:
> I just heard a report that Radio Shack no longer has the nifty analogue
> SPL meter. Is this true?
Seems to me that I've heard that before, perhaps a year ago. It's still
listed in the on-line catalog, however that doesn't mean that a
randomly store would have it. And with something like this, if they
don't have it in stock, there's a pretty good chance that you'd be told
that it's been discontinued. Maybe so, maybe not.
Mike Rivers
Colin Henein wrote:
> > > I just heard a report that Radio Shack no longer has the
> > > nifty analogue SPL meter. Is this true?
> Sadly, not in Canada. In Canada the Radio Shack stores have become
> circuit city and all Radio Shack branded items have been sent back.
Aw, geez, why does everyone with a problem live in Canada or Italy or
someplace where they don't have good old 'Mur'can solutions to
problems? ;)
> I'm going to drop by a local
> thx-certified hi-fi place that does all their own installation and
> service. I'm going to try to con them into lending me something, but
> they may be unwilling... their stuff may be extremely valuable to them.
They probalby won't but will offer to come out and survey your place
for $100 or so. If you're friendly with one of the salesmen there, you
might con him into coming over after hours. Or just bring your mic and
preamp into the store, play something back at the level you think
you're hearing at home, verify that you see about the same recording
level, and have them measure the SPL at the mic using their high priced
meter.
hank alrich
> Colin Henein wrote:
> > Simple Question:
> > What reasonably priced audio interfaces (usb, usb2, or firewire) have
> > the most gain-boosting mic preamps?
> > Back Story:
> > I have just bought a Studio Projects LSD2 microphone.
> What's its rated sensitivity? What would you estimate the SPL to be at
> your recording point? I fully agree with Brent; if it's anywhere near
> typical sensitivity for a condenser it should be "melting the soundcard"
> at 54 dB gain.
Not when tracking a bluegrass band from 20 feet away, speaking from
experience.
--
ha
hank alrich
> google...@juicer.orange-carb.org says...
> >> No, it's because you're expecting too much out
> >> of cheap consumer electronics.
> >Sigh. Fair enough I guess.
> I can lead a horse to water,
No, you try to lead ignorance to bullshit.
> but this is the last time I'll be mentioning this
> in this thread. The pre-amps on these audio interfaces are fine if you don't
> crank them up all the way.
Read what he posted. Those preamps are not "fine" in the contextual
circumstance.
> You know as well as I do that the pre-amps are
> quiet for most of the gain stage, just not the very top.
And since the very top is where he's needing to run his preamp in order
to get useful signal in a distant micing application, your point is
imaginary.
> The gain ramps up really steep at the end and thats why you get the noise
> only when its cranked but not if its not cranked. They designed it this
> way on purpose just in case people need really high gain (at the expense
> of introducing noise). Manufacturers designed the pre-amps in 24bit audio
> interfaces this way because they know that you don't need to record really
> hot levels at 24bit. This design is the best compromise to get good
> recordings with cheap pre-amps. And many of the people who have responded
> to you know this, too, but would prefer to babble on about you needing to
> shell out more money for 'pro' equipment because they are professional
> wankers! They want people to think that you can't get a good signal out
> of 'cheap consumer electronics'. A mic pre-amp that will deliver a
> markedly better signal than the ones in the audio interfaces will cost at
> least $1000 and the difference will still be negligable (providing you use
> the pre-amps in the audio interface properly as I described).
Bullshit. He has a low senstivity mic. Your soundcard doesn't have
enough gain for his mic in the usage he intends. End of your story.
The beginning of his story is that he either needs a hotter mic or a
stouter preamp to achieve his goals. If he can live with the pre he has
with the +12 setting, he's good to go. He ain't recording synths direct.
Those who do and want to tell folks about micing might be considered
wannabe wankers. A pre that delivers far better sound than the one he
has costs less than five hundred US dollars for two channels.
--
ha
Paul Stamler
> It used to be that condenser mics, for the same SPL, had 10-15 dB
> greater output than dynamic mics. If you were to compare a U47 with an
> EV 654 you'd see this. The mic inputs on professional gear (broadcast
> and studio) had enough gain to get a decent level out of a common
> ribbon mic with either a close speaking voice (like a radio announcer),
> a projecting singer, or an orchestra. Condenser mics of the day often
> had to be padded down so as not to overload the input stage.
[snip]
> Add to this the fact that less experienced people started using
> recording equipment. As a result, modern condenser mics don't have
> quite as much higher output as dynamic mics so the novices won't be
> worried about wide variations in how they set up their equipment. Then
> throw in lower internal noise floor (no tape hiss) and you start to see
> why you can't get there from here.
Except it ain't so; I've tested quite a few condenser mics over the last ten
years, referencing them against the well-circulated Shure SM81 (which is,
indeed, about 10dB hotter than a typical dynamic mic). Virtually all of them
were *more* sensitive than the SM81, sometimes a lot more. These mics ranged
from Chinese cheapos to BLUEs and Gefells, and they were all hot, hot, hot.
I attribute this mainly to the spread of transformerless design (no more
worries about transformer saturation) and the desire to be louder than the
hiss in cheap preamps.
Peace,
Paul
stealthaxe
news:dkda0a$ptp$1...@panix2.panix.com:
> Colin Henein <google...@juicer.orange-carb.org> wrote:
>>Could the difference between the board and the interfaces be due to
>>impedance matching? I'm ignorant about impedance.
> No, it's because you're expecting too much out of cheap consumer
> electronics. --scott
i think i'd be inclined to disagree here. impedence mismatching could have
a lot to do with the noise problem. still, there's not a lot that you can
do about it.
--
stealthaxe
Mike Rivers
Paul Stamler wrote:
> I've tested quite a few condenser mics over the last ten
> years, referencing them against the well-circulated Shure SM81 (which is,
> indeed, about 10dB hotter than a typical dynamic mic). Virtually all of them
> were *more* sensitive than the SM81, sometimes a lot more. These mics ranged
> from Chinese cheapos to BLUEs and Gefells, and they were all hot, hot, hot.
Well, you've had a lot more mics come through your hands than I have,
but if modern mics are hot, hot, hot, then I guess modern mic inputs
must be cool, cool, cool. The newest thing around here that I have with
a mic input is a Mackie Onyx, and I find that with most mics and
sources that I have, I need to run it nearly at full gain.
"I don't play no rock and roll."
Pooh Bear
Mike Rivers wrote:
55dB of gain from one of my mic amps will result in a self noise from the mic amp
of around -73dBu.
Expect the same from Mackie, Behringer, Soundcraft etc etc...
A boutique mic pre might better that by say 1dB.
Graham
Bob Cain
And I know you have more than enough of that to speak with authority.
Have you ever measured the SPL in such a situation?
Bob Cain
Arny Krueger wrote:
> Looking at http://www.studioprojects.com/lsd2.html
>
> This mic has -38 dB sensitivity.
With that, 54 dB of gain would raise 84 dB SPL to 2 Vrms. Hank, is this
about what one would expect from a bluegrass band at 20 ft.
Also, is 2 Vrms a reasonable approximation to 0 dBFS for line level
converters? That's what my Yamaha DS2416 does but I don't know how
typical it is.
Mike Rivers
Bob Cain wrote:
> With that, 54 dB of gain would raise 84 dB SPL to 2 Vrms. Hank, is this
> about what one would expect from a bluegrass band at 20 ft.
>
> Also, is 2 Vrms a reasonable approximation to 0 dBFS for line level
> converters?
Not hardly. 2V RMS is about +8 dBu. Most "pro" (nominal +4 dBu
operating level) A/D converters give you somewhere in the ballpark of
-16 dBFS at nominal input level. So an input of +8 dBu would give you
about -12 dBFS, which is a perfectly reasonable eyeball average level.
But given that this only fills up about 1/4 of the waveform display
area, one might think that there's insufficient level. And one might be
wrong unless one is recording something with no dynamic range. Not my
idea of a pleasant bluegrass band.
Colin Henein
Mike Rivers wrote:
> Aw, geez, why does everyone with a problem live in Canada or Italy or
> someplace where they don't have good old 'Mur'can solutions to
> problems? ;)
Don't laugh-- but I almost drove an hour from here to Ogdensburg NY
just to go to a real Radio Shack. Didn't do that. I may be able to
borrow an SPL meter on Monday. The THX place had their tech off sick
for two weeks and can't help right now.
However, Brent suggested trying it against another condenser. I was
able to borrow a Behringer B1. Not a great mic, but fits the bill in
terms of another condenser. My (SPL unknown) test rig indicates a
difference of about 12 dB between the lower requirements of gain for
the B1 vs. the higher requirements of the LSD2.
Does this jive with your thoughts on these two microphones? It still
seems a bit cool to me, but perhaps I am really deluding myself over
here about what I can expect from these microphones.
I am still worried that the LSD2 is not going to be able to pull in the
type of program I want to record. The thing is that I know that many
good old recordings of quiet sources were made with Blumlein from a
distance. What is different about my rig that accounts for its lower
sensitivity?
Chevdo
Wank, go have another lice bath.
In article <1h5hwhe.i3wl4mxfjsmeN%walk...@thegrid.net>, walk...@thegrid.net
says...
Chevdo
>
>
>Wank, go have another lice bath.
Incidentally, Wank, if your music is as aesthetically disgusting as your
appearance, that could explain why you are a lifelong failure.
hank alrich
> I am still worried that the LSD2 is not going to be able to pull in the
> type of program I want to record. The thing is that I know that many
> good old recordings of quiet sources were made with Blumlein from a
> distance. What is different about my rig that accounts for its lower
> sensitivity?
Colin, some of those old tube preamps had a lot of gain, and weren't all
that noisy.
--
ha
Arny Krueger
news:dkgok...@enews1.newsguy.com
>> This mic has -38 dB sensitivity.
> With that, 54 dB of gain would raise 84 dB SPL to 2 Vrms.
> Hank, is this about what one would expect from a
> bluegrass band at 20 ft.
That's what I'm thinking.
> Also, is 2 Vrms a reasonable approximation to 0 dBFS for
> line level converters? That's what my Yamaha DS2416 does
> but I don't know how typical it is.
Its at or near the lower end of the range.
I've found no consistency, even within the same
manufacturer.
I've found so-called +4 inputs where FS ranged from about 2
to 7 volts.
Arny Krueger
I'm thinking that this might be part of the problem - we
might have a new recordist who expects peak levels to fill
up the waveform display on his DAW.
hank alrich
> ch...@dont.com says...
> Incidentally, Wank, if your music is as aesthetically disgusting as your
> appearance, that could explain why you are a lifelong failure.
Yeah, Chevdood, that's all I hear from my fellow musos and clients, that
I am just too ugly to be around.
--
ha
WillStG
> Yeah, Chevdood, that's all I hear from my fellow musos and clients, that
> I am just too ugly to be around.
>
> --
> ha
But that kind of a face is made to get you on radio.
Will Miho
NY TV/Audio Post/Music and Live Sound Guy
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits
Mike Rivers
Colin Henein wrote:
> However, Brent suggested trying it against another condenser. I was
> able to borrow a Behringer B1. Not a great mic, but fits the bill in
> terms of another condenser. My (SPL unknown) test rig indicates a
> difference of about 12 dB between the lower requirements of gain for
> the B1 vs. the higher requirements of the LSD2.
>
> Does this jive with your thoughts on these two microphones?
That was a good demonstration, and I don't think that it's unreasonable
for two entirely different condenser mics to differ by 10 dB or more in
sensitivity. I'm not one of those people who feels that something must
be wrong if I have to turn the gain up all the way, so I never really
worried about it much, nor have I ever sought out high-output mics for
their sensitivity.
I suspect that since Behringer mics tend to be marketed and sold to the
"louder is better" crowd, there may be some gain inside the case so
that on first listen, you'll be impressed by how sensitive it is. But
without knowing more, like the self-noise out of the mic, it's hard to
say if that gain will do you any good, other than if you don't have
enough gain elsewhere.
> I am still worried that the LSD2 is not going to be able to pull in the
> type of program I want to record.
I've used it to record string music concerts ranging from soloists with
quiet banjos to four piece bluegrass bands, using a Mackie 1402 or Onyx
1220. Sure, the meters never get any closer to full scale than about
-12 dBFS (which looks like very little area of black in a waveform
display) but the recordings are perfectly satisfactory. If I want to
add 10 dB afterward, I can do so and the noise level doesn't become
objectionable. Bear in mind that these are all live recordings with
people and air moving, so there's already some background noise and
hiss seems to blend in naturally.
I've used the mic in the studio for "front of drums" where there's of
course plenty of level, and also as a pair of figure-8 mics on a
singing guitarist, with the vocal mic of the pair turned so that it
picks up the least amount of guitar, and vice versa for the guitar mic.
Plenty of output there, too, but then that's at a distance of a foot to
18 inches.
> The thing is that I know that many
> good old recordings of quiet sources were made with Blumlein from a
> distance. What is different about my rig that accounts for its lower
> sensitivity?
You don't have any tape hiss to cover up the preamp hiss. Get yourself
a good Ampex AG-440. <g>
Colin Henein
feet wet with a few rentals in the past, but now wants to own a decent
rig for his purposes. (And one who wants to return bad gear to the
store within 30 days if it is truly bad.)
However, I'm innocent on watching the waveform view. Although maybe my
problem is equivalent. :)
I am guilty for wanting to see VU levels from a distant mic up in the
same place as VU levels from final program material. It's easy to get
those kinds of levels on a close mic, but I'm learning from many in
this thread that it isn't a prerequisite for my purposes further back.
I'm coming to the conclusion that I'm not going to lose anything I care
about if I boost my levels in software.
Colin Henein
relief from the assembled). I was surprised by the reasonably small
difference between the Behringer and the LSD2.
I rented a pair of AKG 414s and a Drawmer 1960 in the past, and I
remember that combo being very hot indeed. In my memory it was hotter
than the LSD2 and anything I'm matching it with today. However, my
memory may have been wrong there, and the overhead placement of my 414s
was likely physically closer to singers than my test setup today (or my
likely placement for recording concerts).
I'm coming to the following conclusions:
(a) there's nothing wrong with the microphone, so I don't need to
return it
(b) I should go with the firebox as it seems like the software is more
stable and better designed -- and it's in my price range, and nothing
within my price range will really make a huge difference. The 6 dB less
range on the mic pre compared to the 410 may be meaningless because of
M-Audio's marketing dept and 6 dB isn't that much to worry about
anyway.
(c) I should set the gain on the firebox preamp to minimise noise,
rather than trying to crank it to the noisy maximum output range
(d) the levels, which may look obscenely low to someone used to
monitoring radio and live sound meters, can be boosted after the fact
to the level required.
(e) Relax. Don't worry, have a homebrew.
So, Mike, you have no problems with tracking at -12 dbFS, and it
appears that it is not necessary to track at -6 to -3 dbFS. Where would
you say the range is that I want to be looking at? If I'm moving around
during a sound check to try to find a reasonable spot in the hall,
where should I be happy? Should I be happy with levels peaking at -24
dbFS? -18 dbFS? Obviously more is better, but where on the scale is
"not enough"?
(And I'll start looking for that tape hiss. I must have some around
here somewhere...)
hank alrich
> hank alrich wrote:
> > Yeah, Chevdood, that's all I hear from my fellow musos and clients, that
> > I am just too ugly to be around.
> But that kind of a face is made to get you on radio.
Only if you don't look closely... <g>
--
ha
hank alrich
> So, Mike, you have no problems with tracking at -12 dbFS, and it
> appears that it is not necessary to track at -6 to -3 dbFS. Where would
> you say the range is that I want to be looking at?
That's adequate level for the task. Realize - 12 dBFS is still nominally
22 bits worth of dynamic range (not so practically, as to start with we
have no convertors that realize 24 bits in our real world), or if it
were fully realized 132 dB of dynamic range. I know about banjos, but
still... <g>
> If I'm moving around
> during a sound check to try to find a reasonable spot in the hall,
> where should I be happy? Should I be happy with levels peaking at -24
> dbFS? -18 dbFS? Obviously more is better, but where on the scale is
> "not enough"?
Pay more attention to the quality of the sound at each potential micing
spot and worry less about the level. You would much rather have great
sound at a lower level than bad sound plenty hot.
--
ha
hank alrich
Many of us have had a hangover from analog daze, wanting sometimes to
see that VU meter hopping. Here in 24 bit capture and 16 bit playback
land, you have tremendous headroom when tracking, and little noise
penalty for a few top bits not utilized.
--
ha
hank alrich
> hank alrich wrote:
> > Bob Cain wrote:
> >> Colin Henein wrote:
> >>> Simple Question:
> >>> What reasonably priced audio interfaces (usb, usb2, or firewire) have
> >>> the most gain-boosting mic preamps?
> >>> Back Story:
> >>> I have just bought a Studio Projects LSD2 microphone.
> >> What's its rated sensitivity? What would you estimate the SPL to be at
> >> your recording point? I fully agree with Brent; if it's anywhere near
> >> typical sensitivity for a condenser it should be "melting the soundcard"
> >> at 54 dB gain.
> > Not when tracking a bluegrass band from 20 feet away, speaking from
> > experience.
> And I know you have more than enough of that to speak with authority.
> Have you ever measured the SPL in such a situation?
I haven't but that would be an interesting figure. Maybe next time. <g>
--
ha
Paul Stamler
Yes, I've noticed gains in mic preamps trending downwards, which goes along
with the increasing hotness of condenser mic outputs. The trend arrives just
in time for the return to popularity of ribbon microphones.
Peace,
Paul (timing is everything)
Paul Stamler
news:1131156263.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> However, Brent suggested trying it against another condenser. I was
> able to borrow a Behringer B1. Not a great mic, but fits the bill in
> terms of another condenser. My (SPL unknown) test rig indicates a
> difference of about 12 dB between the lower requirements of gain for
> the B1 vs. the higher requirements of the LSD2.
>
> Does this jive with your thoughts on these two microphones? It still
> seems a bit cool to me, but perhaps I am really deluding myself over
> here about what I can expect from these microphones.
Have you measured the phantom voltage at the mic inputs of the interface? Is
it truly +48V?
> I am still worried that the LSD2 is not going to be able to pull in the
> type of program I want to record. The thing is that I know that many
> good old recordings of quiet sources were made with Blumlein from a
> distance. What is different about my rig that accounts for its lower
> sensitivity?
Lower maximum gain, poor noise performance at maximum gain -- you've already
described the problem.
Peace,
Paul
Mike Rivers
> I rented a pair of AKG 414s and a Drawmer 1960 in the past, and I
> remember that combo being very hot indeed. In my memory it was hotter
> than the LSD2 and anything I'm matching it with today.
OK, you just conned me into about $100 worth of work, but what the
heck, it's Saturday. I set up my LSD2 and C414B-ULS.With both set for
Figure-8 (which seems to be your interest, and placed head-to-head
about 5 feet back from a speaker, I played pink noise into the speaker
and set the level to 85 dB SPL A-Weighted at the mics and set the gain
of the Great River preamp to 50 dB each channel. The output of the
preamp from the C414 was an eyeball average of 0 dBu (which is why I
picked 50 dB gain). The output from the LSD2 was about +0.5 dBu,
practically the same. So anything you could do with the C414, you could
do with the LSD.2.
Now, let me point out that 0 dBu coming out of the preamp (and going
into an A/D converter with a nominal +4 dBu input level) will produce a
digital recording level somewhere in the ballpark of -20 dBFS. So in
order to get close to full scale digital, I'd need at least 65 dB of
gain, maybe a little more.
> I'm coming to the following conclusions:
> (a) there's nothing wrong with the microphone, so I don't need to
> return it
> (b) I should go with the firebox as it seems like the software is more
> stable and better designed -- and it's in my price range,
Sounds like a plan to me, but don't expect to reach full scale digital
level with it unless you're right up on the mic. But there's nothing
wroing with a conservative recording level, particularly if you can
work at 24 bits.
> (c) I should set the gain on the firebox preamp to minimise noise,
> rather than trying to crank it to the noisy maximum output range
You should experiment. If the noise goes up faster than the gain when
you get near the top of the range, then yes, back it off a bit. But if
that 10 dB increase in noise results in a 10 dB increase in gain, then
you might as well use it. But see which sounds better - running the
Firebox mic input at, say, 10 dB less than maximum gain and boosting it
digitally, or running it at maximum gain. I can't predict that since I
don't know the device and there's nothing in the specs that will
suggest which might work better. You might find that there's no
significant difference, so do what's most convenient.
> (d) the levels, which may look obscenely low to someone used to
> monitoring radio and live sound meters, can be boosted after the fact
> to the level required.
> (e) Relax. Don't worry, have a homebrew.
Yup
> So, Mike, you have no problems with tracking at -12 dbFS, and it
> appears that it is not necessary to track at -6 to -3 dbFS. Where would
> you say the range is that I want to be looking at?
I'd say that if peaks never get above -20 dBFS, see if you can goose it
up, but I wouldn't try for -6 because you'll probably never get there
unless you're recording a drum set at five feet.
> during a sound check to try to find a reasonable spot in the hall,
> where should I be happy? Should I be happy with levels peaking at -24
> dbFS? -18 dbFS?
Sure, if that's where the mic sounds best. That should be your first
priority. But you really should do some testing before going out on the
gig. Playing music from your speakers into the mic is a good exercise.
85 dB SPL is pretty loud but not uncomfortable. It's the standard
"movie sound track" level. I prefer to do my monitoring in the 70-80 dB
range. But that will give you a reference until you can get a visit
from someone with an SPL meter.
Lorin David Schultz
>
> [...] The pre-amps on these audio interfaces are fine if you don't
> crank them up all the way.
Great. So what? The issue this person is facing is that he needs to
crank it up all the way to get enough gain. In *this* case, the preamps
are NOT "fine."
If the mics are fairly close to the source, and the source is fairly
loud, and the mics have fairly high sensitivity, you probably won't ever
need more than 40-50dB of gain. In that case, a built-in pre very well
may be "fine." But if the source is quiet and the mics are not close
and have low sensitivity, a preamp with lots of noise at high gain isn't
a good tool for the task. Why would you say it is?
> This design is the best compromise to get good recordings with cheap
> pre-amps.
Sure, it's probably a reasonable compromise. It doesn't work for this
particular situation though. So, what's your point?
> And many of the people who have responded to you know this, too, but
> would prefer to babble on about you needing to shell out more money
> for 'pro' equipment because they are professional wankers!
Really? You think people here have some kind of vested interest in the
outcome? Like they get a royalty payment every time they suggest an
equipment upgrade? Your view is illogical.
Do you think it's possible that MAYBE people who do this for a living
have been down the same road a time or two hundred, have tried a variety
of approaches, and found that simply using a better preamp really *is*
the best solution?
> They want people to think that you can't get a good signal out of
> 'cheap consumer electronics'.
No. They want people to know what works well and what doesn't.
Sometimes a firecracker is sufficient. Other times you really need a
stick of dynamite to do the job properly. Why would you take issue with
that?
I can take my underpowered drill and get half-way through my work, then
spin the job around and come in from the other side. I'll get a sloppy
hole, but it will work. Or I can just get a more powerful drill and do
the job in one step rather than two, reduce the risk of mistakes, and
have a better finished product. That's not elitist, it's just good
common sense.
It's simply a case of using the right tool for the job. There are
always solutions that cost nothing... the question is whether they're
worth the extra time and effort and compromised results.
> the difference will still be negligable (providing you use the pre-
> amps in the audio interface properly as I described).
If he uses the preamps in the manner you described, his recording level
will be inadequate. How does he benefit from this?
--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good
(Remove spamblock to reply)
Lorin David Schultz
>
> Aw, geez, why does everyone with a problem live in Canada or Italy or
> someplace where they don't have good old 'Mur'can solutions to
> problems? ;)
How would military intervention help him anyway?
(smirking, running and ducking) <g>
Mike Rivers
Paul Stamler wrote:
> Yes, I've noticed gains in mic preamps trending downwards, which goes along
> with the increasing hotness of condenser mic outputs.
Also with the trend (often boosted by the lack of any useful acoustic
qualities in the marjority of recording spaces today) to place mics
very close to sources. Not much recording done at a distance these days
except at the "pro" level, whatever that means.
> The trend arrives just
> in time for the return to popularity of ribbon microphones.
That's why we're seeing ribbon mics with built-in amplifiers - so they
can keep up with the condenser mics.
Chevdo
>
>"Chevdo" <ch...@dont.com> wrote:
>>
>> [...] The pre-amps on these audio interfaces are fine if you don't
>> crank them up all the way.
>
>Great. So what? The issue this person is facing is that he needs to
>crank it up all the way to get enough gain.
Why do you think he needs that much gain?
Kurt Albershardt
>
> I rented a pair of AKG 414s and a Drawmer 1960 in the past, and I
> remember that combo being very hot indeed. In my memory it was hotter
> than the LSD2 and anything I'm matching it with today.
Another trick I have used is to set my A/D converters for -10 and use
them with a +4 preamp output. Sometimes this produces a less noisy
result than cranking the preamp up does.
Kurt Albershardt
>
> I've noticed gains in mic preamps trending downwards, which goes along
> with the increasing hotness of condenser mic outputs. The trend arrives just
> in time for the return to popularity of ribbon microphones.
So we can all run out and buy "ribbon preamps" of course.
Paul Stamler
news:3t51qcF...@individual.net...
Don't laugh; I bet we see some at next fall's AES show.
Peace,
Paul
Arny Krueger
in message
news:1131156263.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
>> Aw, geez, why does everyone with a problem live in
>> Canada or Italy or someplace where they don't have good
>> old 'Mur'can solutions to problems? ;)
>
> Don't laugh-- but I almost drove an hour from here to
> Ogdensburg NY just to go to a real Radio Shack. Didn't do
> that. I may be able to borrow an SPL meter on Monday. The
> THX place had their tech off sick for two weeks and can't
> help right now.
>
> However, Brent suggested trying it against another
> condenser. I was able to borrow a Behringer B1. Not a
> great mic, but fits the bill in terms of another
> condenser. My (SPL unknown) test rig indicates a
> difference of about 12 dB between the lower requirements
> of gain for the B1 vs. the higher requirements of the
> LSD2.
Rated sensitivity of the B1 is -34 dB.
The LDS2 is rated at -38 dB
They both have similar pickup patterns - both are cardioids.
Their sensitivity specs should therefore be fairly
comparable for actual use.
12 dB is significantly different from 4 dB.
Something is wrong!
Chevdo
>
>
>Something is wrong!
>
>
Certainly more likely than pre-amps in audio-interfaces being unusable.
Colin Henein
> OK, you just conned me into about $100 worth of work, but what the
> heck, it's Saturday. I set up my LSD2 and C414B-ULS.With both set for
> Figure-8 (which seems to be your interest, and placed head-to-head
> about 5 feet back from a speaker, I played pink noise into the speaker
> and set the level to 85 dB SPL A-Weighted at the mics and set the gain
> of the Great River preamp to 50 dB each channel. The output of the
> preamp from the C414 was an eyeball average of 0 dBu (which is why I
> picked 50 dB gain). The output from the LSD2 was about +0.5 dBu,
> practically the same. So anything you could do with the C414, you could
> do with the LSD.2.
Wow. Thanks for going to that trouble. If I had access to a 414 right
now I could see if I'm getting the same gain off both, myself. Perhaps
I'll ask the "mic store" if they have a rental 414 they'd be willing to
lend me.
It's also reassuring to know that a good LSD2 is going to be capable of
the same kind of tricks as a pair of 414s, as I am very happy with the
recording I got off the 414s.
rbo...@yahoo.com
Doc: "Don't do that"
Seriously, I've found that since leaving 16 bit recording and the
interfaces of that era, I've stopped treating the meters like tape
VU/peak meters. If the level from a good sounding but not hot enough
mic through a good sounding but not hot pre is hitting at something not
as high as I usually get, and I don't want to go into the pre's top
range, I usually leave it there if it sounds fine going in. Plus,
after years of hitting everything so hard in multitrack sessions and
then bringing everything down to avoid master clipping (I know it's a
different situation than the OP, but still...) I found it didn't suffer
to lower my meter hitting goal in tracking.
Something's gotta give when raising the level, no matter how it's done,
and I haven't found just letting it be, to avoid preamp shmutz in the
top range, and letting the software in mixing and mastering raise it
bring in any objectional issues at all, relatively.
Carey Carlan
> If I'm moving around
> during a sound check to try to find a reasonable spot in the hall,
> where should I be happy? Should I be happy with levels peaking at -24
> dbFS? -18 dbFS? Obviously more is better, but where on the scale is
> "not enough"?
Moving around the house is going to change your source levels, but likely
not your background levels. Air exchangers, street noise, dimmer buzz and
the like will be uniform across the space.
Unless you're in a "silent" room, background racket will swamp your source
long before your source is quiet enough to be swamped by preamp noise.
Scott Dorsey
Because he has a quiet source and a low-output microphone.
I thought you were going away?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."