Rane MS-1b Micpre
robo
Rob
David Satz
> Is anybody using this little thingy.For less then $200 too.
I've tested it out. It performs well in most respects, but the way its
gain control circuit is set up, the low-frequency response depends on the
gain setting, and that really shouldn't be the case. As I recall (there's
a message here within the past year in which I posted my exact measurement
results), there were rather significant losses--3 to 5 dB down, maybe--at
the higher end of the gain range. (cf. "Google Groups Search")
Perhaps a simple capacitor substitution would fix that problem, though.
Mike Rivers
> I've tested it out. It performs well in most respects, but the way its
> gain control circuit is set up, the low-frequency response depends on the
> gain setting, and that really shouldn't be the case.
The "world class" Mackie XDR preamps are the same way.
> Perhaps a simple capacitor substitution would fix that problem, though.
It would, in the case of the Mackie, but it's not so simple because
there just isn't room for it. The designer designed it right but when
it came down to the "we can't sell it if it costs that much, you have
to cut something" that's what got cut. The rationalization (my words,
not Mackie's, who don't have any on the subject) is that with the gain
wide open, chances are there's going to be some low frequency ambient
noise that you're going to want to cut anyway. And at normal
rock-and-roll into-the-mic levels, the low frequency response is all
there. So in practice (and this may well be the case with the Rane
too) it isn't as bad as you'd like it to look.
--
I'm really Mike Rivers - (mri...@d-and-d.com)
Arny Krueger
news:80514288.03070...@posting.google.com
> Is anybody using this little thingy.For less then $200 too.
I have a MS-1 (earlier model), and I've used it a number and it has worked
fine for me.
I can confirm the other comments about low-end roll-off at high gain
settings
Based on my favorable experience with a Symetrix SX-202, were I to do buy
another small mic pre, I'd pick up a SX-302 (current updated model) for only
a few bucks more. In the process I'd get a second channel, better EMI
rejection, and no problems with bass-rolloff in what I find to be a more
useful and ergonomic package.
LeBaron & Alrich
> The rationalization (my words,
> not Mackie's, who don't have any on the subject) is that with the gain
> wide open, chances are there's going to be some low frequency ambient
> noise that you're going to want to cut anyway. And at normal
> rock-and-roll into-the-mic levels, the low frequency response is all
> there. So in practice (and this may well be the case with the Rane
> too) it isn't as bad as you'd like it to look.
So just don't buy any ribbon mics? <g> Because there it sounds worse
than I'd like it to sound, Mackie-wise.
--
hank alrich * secret mountain
audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement
"If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
Mike Rivers
> So just don't buy any ribbon mics? <g> Because there it sounds worse
> than I'd like it to sound, Mackie-wise.
People who use ribbon mics wouldn't be caught dead with a Mackie just
on general principles (or at least shouldn't). Kind of like mixing 50
year old Scotch with Coca Cola.
Aaron J. Grier
> People who use ribbon mics wouldn't be caught dead with a Mackie just
> on general principles (or at least shouldn't).
not even with a decent mic pre?
> Kind of like mixing 50 year old Scotch with Coca Cola.
except you don't "use up" a mic or mixer by hooking them to eachother.
--
Aaron J. Grier | "Not your ordinary poofy goof." | agr...@poofygoof.com
"Isn't an OS that openly and proudly admits to come directly from Holy
UNIX better than a cheap UNIX copycat that needs to be sued in court
to determine what the hell it really is?" -- Michael Sokolov
serious fun
http://www.musicgearnetwork.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=005400
"robo" <ottav...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:80514288.03070...@posting.google.com...
Scott Dorsey
>In article <1fxobbs.oe5ngaqylojgN%walk...@thegrid.net> walk...@thegrid.net writes:
>
>> So just don't buy any ribbon mics? <g> Because there it sounds worse
>> than I'd like it to sound, Mackie-wise.
>
>People who use ribbon mics wouldn't be caught dead with a Mackie just
>on general principles (or at least shouldn't). Kind of like mixing 50
>year old Scotch with Coca Cola.
Sadly it happens to me a lot.
But the M-500 works surprisingly well into a Mackie. You can hear an example
on the penultimate RAP CD compilation. I find that going into a 1:1:1
transformer splitter unit actually improves the sound of ribbons a lot when
the PA console is a Mackie, although it doesn't do anything to improve the
noise floor.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Mike Rivers
> Mike Rivers <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote:
> > People who use ribbon mics wouldn't be caught dead with a Mackie just
> > on general principles (or at least shouldn't).
>
> not even with a decent mic pre?
You mean putting a decent mic preamp into the Mackie? Or going
straight to the recorder through decent mic preamps and leaving the
Mackie for monitoring? Not quite sure what you're getting at here.
Maybe you're making too much of my statement. Ribbon mics as a rule
(and yeah, I know that there's at least one powered ribbom mic to
which this doesn't apply) have fairly low sensitivity, so for a given
SPL, require more gain than other mics. And I think it was in this
thread that I mentioned that the Mackie front end loses low frequency
response when you run it wide open.
> > Kind of like mixing 50 year old Scotch with Coca Cola.
> except you don't "use up" a mic or mixer by hooking them to eachother.
You do if you're recording a live performance that won't happen again.
Is this "Beat on Mike because he doesn't present a lab notebook with
every statement" week again? I guess I haven't had a turn for a
while.
Aaron J. Grier
> In article <vgj82t...@corp.supernews.com> agr...@poofygoof.com writes:
>
> > Mike Rivers <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote:
> > > People who use ribbon mics wouldn't be caught dead with a Mackie
> > > just on general principles (or at least shouldn't).
> >
> > not even with a decent mic pre?
>
> You mean putting a decent mic preamp into the Mackie?
yes.
> Or going straight to the recorder through decent mic preamps and
> leaving the Mackie for monitoring?
that too.
> Not quite sure what you're getting at here.
if the mackie pre-amps are completely bypassed, am I wasting my time and
efforts in acquiring a ribbon microphone to run through my RNP and 1202?
LeBaron & Alrich
> But the M-500 works surprisingly well into a Mackie.
This is true IME. Not so the M260, M160, or my M360. I'm just gonna
assume we don't want to try an M130.
LeBaron & Alrich
> if the mackie pre-amps are completely bypassed, am I wasting my time and
> efforts in acquiring a ribbon microphone to run through my RNP and 1202?
I don't think so, but I also think I would route from the RNP straight
into storage, using the Mackie only for monitoring when necessary.
Arny Krueger
"Mike Rivers" <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1057612402k@trad...
> In article <vgj82t...@corp.supernews.com> agr...@poofygoof.com writes:
> > Mike Rivers <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote:
> > > People who use ribbon mics wouldn't be caught dead with a Mackie just
> > > on general principles (or at least shouldn't).
>
> > not even with a decent mic pre?
> You mean putting a decent mic preamp into the Mackie?
A glance at the user manual for my SR-32 page 58 shows that line inputs are
attenuated and fed through the Mackie's mic preamps for all mono inputs. The
relatively few stereo inputs have only line-level connections and don't go
through mic preamps.
I don't know how widespread this is in the ENTIRE Mackie line, but a few
other Mackie mixer manuals I reviewed including the popular 1604 and 1204,
are built the same way.
This suggests to me that other than mic loading issues and issues related to
operation with very high gain, whatever bad thing it is that Mackie mic
preamps do, most people aren't avoiding them when they use external mic
preamps.
Mike Rivers
> > You mean putting a decent mic preamp into the Mackie?
> yes.
> > Or going straight to the recorder through decent mic preamps and
> > leaving the Mackie for monitoring?
> that too.
Those are two different things. The line input of a Mackie mixer (and
most other mixers in and even somewhat above its price class) is just
an attenuated version of the mic input, so you're running one mic
preamp (the external one) through another mic preamp (the Mackie).
That's fine if you like what the Mackie does to the preamp's sound,
not fine if you prefer the sound with the Mackie bypassed.
> > Not quite sure what you're getting at here.
>
> if the mackie pre-amps are completely bypassed, am I wasting my time and
> efforts in acquiring a ribbon microphone to run through my RNP and 1202?
The internal mic preamps are only completely bypassed when the mixer
isn't in the signal path. I compared a Beyer M160 into a 1202 VLZ-Pro
with a Great River MP2 with Greg Mackie, Cal Perkins (designer of the
Mackie XDR preamp) and a few other Mackoids present. Everyone agreed
that it sounded better through the Great River. One of the things that
was apparent was that with the gain on the Mackie wide open, there was
a noticable loss of low frequency response. This didn't occur with the
Great River set for the same gain, or even at full gain.
The RNP is probably a better match for a ribbon mic IN GENERAL than
the Mackie, and that's what the mic will see even if you connect the
output of the RNP into the line input of the Mackie on its way to the
recorder. But why bother? Connect the RNP directly to the recorder and
use the Mackie mixer for monitoring. If you have a latency problem
with the recorder (presumably a computer), it's OK to split the output
of the RNP to both the recorder and to the mixer for monitoring when
you're recording.