New Schoeps CMD 2 U digital Microphone Amplifier
Rado Stefano
d rosen
so how much?
can i plug it into the aes of a minir82?
btw how do you set the gain?
or is that a stupid question?
is this future?
dan
wildt®ax
the digital scale so if the mic distorts the end of the digital scale
is reached too. The converter´s dynamic range exceeds that of the
capsule so there´s no need to set a gain before the signal is
converted to digital.
The mic needs a special digital phantom-power 10V AES42-DPP and can be
controlled over AES42 the new standard protocol for digital mics that
also carries sync-signal Fs-switching etc.
Neumann also makes a range.
Here´s more info:
http://www.neumann.com/?lang=en&id=current_microphones&cid=kmd_description
Frank.
d rosen schrieb:
Peter
It would be great if the MiniR82 had an AES-42DPP input. I don't know
if any of the equipment we normally use does. (Mostly it's AES-31 I
think, without the 10v phantom powering voltage.)
But I think this is the first step of a great improvement. This could
mean extremely quiet inputs with no mic preamps, no trim, and no
digital overloads. I imagine a mixer with full control of gain from
0dBFS to mute on one (hopefully configurable) fader and iso sends with
no gain montitoring necessary.
The catch, of course, is waiting for other equipment to become
compatible. Meanwhile I hope Schoeps or someone comes up with an AES42
to AES31 power supply that's small and runs on 12 volts. Maybe its
already out there.
Peter
wildt®ax
is directly converted to digital. There seems to be no pre-amp stage
and therefor you do not need to set a gain because the capsule will
distort before the converter.
frank.
wildt®ax schrieb:
wildt®ax
Peter schrieb:
> compatible. Meanwhile I hope Schoeps or someone comes up with an AES42
> to AES31 power supply that's small and runs on 12 volts. Maybe its
> already out there.
There is. Neumann makes one. See the link I posted previously.
frank.
Peter
Peter
Travis Groves
This just goes to show, we're moving toward an all digital workflow.
If the Schoeps function anything like the digital Neumann mics, all mic
parameters such as pad, e.q., and polar pattern will be remotely
adjustable from a computer. So we've eliminated the need for an analog
mixer/preamp, eliminated the need for outboard A/D converters, now if
we can just get the Zaxcom R/x's to output a digital signal. A couple
of years from now and we'll be sitting behind our PC/MACs remotely
controlling any mic parameter we want. Goodbye mixing, we might not
ever touch faders again. Maybe I'll hold off on that new Sonosax
console. It's kinda sad really. At least the boom ops still get to
have fun.
Travis
d rosen
if that is the case who's going to make a pc/mac interface that you can
wear round your shoulders/neck? or will the current recorder
manufacturers have to script 'support' firmware for the various digital
mics as they become available?
dan.
Travis Groves
> if that is the case who's going to make a pc/mac interface that you can
> wear round your shoulders/neck? or will the current recorder
> manufacturers have to script 'support' firmware for the various digital
> mics as they become available?
>
> dan.
Imagine a bag sized device along the same lines as the DEVA, with 8 AES
42 inputs, a digital mixer for signal routing, and talk back functions.
Travis
Rado Stefano
then that.
This is only speculation.
Noah Timan
At least in my neck of the woods, the need for a balanced mono mix is
more prominent in today's workflow than it has been since the age of
the 4.2. Split tracks and isos, while exceedingly available, seem to
still be only used very occasionally. Having digital mics won't alter
that any. On the contrary, if they develop to their potential, they'll
offer us the relief of being rid of saturation and overmodulation,
wireless video interference, signal loss over hundreds of feet of
cable, and so forth, as well as the things you note -- being rid of
outboard limiters, D/As, exceptionally quiet (and exceptionally
expensive) mixer preamps, etc.
In short, we're still going to need to be able to mix. But if we can
mix with a pure signal path as opposed to a convoluted one, so much the
better. I'd rather focus on the mix than focus on having to babysit
signal quality and reception.
But there's going to be a bunch of hiccups, problems, and unforseen
issues that are going to crop up, as there would be with any new
technology. And that will start once the products are actually issued.
So we've got a while yet.
.02 nvt
Fred Salles
For me to get rid of the preamp also means to get rid of a major part of
what gives a sound its character.
I fear they might sound cold as ever. Anyway I am looking forward to hear
them.
Cheers
Fred
"Noah Timan" <dontwrit...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
Rado Stefano
Your signal has to go in a cable,-wireless, another wireless, analog
front end and ad conversion anyways.If by coloring the signal you mean
introducing noise and distortion I can not judge you. To your ears it
might sound well. Hell to majority of people it sounds well.
For me this technology can keep the signal from the capsule untouched
from everything especially RF.
It will simplify "I hope" the recording devices.
I too might create a digital recording device. (-: "not crystal
clocking one but field Foley with out time code.
Fred Salles
given by the preamp is decisive in their choice of a mixer. Why do you think
music studios invest big money in high quality modern or "vintage"
tube/valve preamps nowadays ? Obviously not for their transparency.
Another example, we still are quite a lot to be moved by the sound of a
Nagra IV.S or even III. Even if we don't get to use them much anymore we
find it more beautifull on -say- a voice than the sound of any digital
recorder on the market today (with the same mike).
It is nothing new to say that with the digital era what we gained in dynamic
range and absence of hiss we lost it in warmth and flexibility.
Ok a neumann doesn't sound like a schoeps that doesn't sound like a
sennheiser but all of them sound better if you plug them in a Nagra than in
a Fostex !
To skip the preamp is revolutionary and very convenient but on the other
hand we might loose yet another ability to give our sound some personality
over the digital workflow.
For me a beautifull sound is everything except flat.
We can debate over the concept of beauty but that would be another thread
(why not actually?).
Regards
Fred Salles
PS: that said I too welcome the innovation. I am not worried and as Noah
Timan said we've got a while yet.
"Rado Stefano" <rado.s...@gmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
1164316412.6...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
wildt®ax
Fred Salles schrieb:
> To skip the preamp is revolutionary and very convenient but on the other
> hand we might loose yet another ability to give our sound some personality
> over the digital workflow.
We MIGHT lose something.
>
> For me a beautifull sound is everything except flat.
> We can debate over the concept of beauty but that would be another thread
> (why not actually?).
Actually till now this kind of mic was more or less non-existant. Why
debate about flat sound if none of us have heard this.
Actually what you hear onver your headphones is coloured by the mic,
the pre-amp, the A/D converter, the D/A and then your headphones.
In this context it´s not quite right to claim that the element that
makes the "sound" is the pre-amp especially "quoting" the charater of
the Nagra wich recorded on magnetic tape.
But anyway. Since no one in this debate has ever heard these mics it´s
a theoretical debate anyway.
Frank.
-弗ｦ*@le斧s.com ｰ､Rｼ斧�ｦ*b rtｰ�
schreef:
>What about the sound ?
>For me to get rid of the preamp also means to get rid of a major part of
>what gives a sound its character.
>
>I fear they might sound cold as ever. Anyway I am looking forward to hear
>them.
ehhh, more cold then the latest Schoeps mike seems rather impossible
to me, so bring it on i would think ?
R
Rado Stefano
> ehhh, more cold then the latest Schoeps mike seems rather impossible
> to me, so bring it on i would think ?
Exactly.
schoeps is schoeps.
Do not forget you can use your old capsules with it.
So you will still have similar sound and without the hassle of having
to buy new capsules.
You will have:
no analog interference
full dynamic range from the noise floor to the absolute SPL limit
without adjustment.
With analog pres the best EIN comes with higher gain which introduces
more noise.
And I have to admit running up to 400 meters of cable without signal
loss will come in handy .
martin griffith
"Rado Stefano" <rado.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hmm, not so sure, analog noise can be better than digital noise.
Imagine a capsule directly into the ADC, like Schoeps, say -40 peak
dBfs or less, the digital signal may be quite "granular" while with an
analogue preamp before the ADC, you may get more hiss, but it will
possibly sound better
maybe
martin
Rado Stefano
Check Solution D
tonym...@gmail.com
some questions:
- how do we make level adjustments with these digital mikes? Often I
fell the need to raise or lower the recording level of a certain mike,
so I can achieve a better balance or a better sound perspective.
- how does these digital mikes handles very low level sounds? Many
times I have to record nature sound tracks, and they´re usually very
low level sounds. Will the digital mikes "read very low levels
acurately? Can I amplify (raise the volume) of this sounds later
without losing quality?
Thanks
Tony Muricy
Rado Stefano
Read the neumann solution D page
http://www.neumann.com/?lang=en&id=current_microphones&cid=d01_description
I know on the neumann there is a fast transient limiter of some sort.
martin griffith
"Rado Stefano" <rado.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
This is a bit of an introduction
http://www.neumann.com/download.php?download=lect0042.PDF
martin
Ty Ford
(in article <4567252a$0$7742$426a...@news.free.fr>):
> Well for the majority of the sound recordists I know and myself the sound
> given by the preamp is decisive in their choice of a mixer. Why do you think
> music studios invest big money in high quality modern or "vintage"
> tube/valve preamps nowadays ? Obviously not for their transparency.
> Another example, we still are quite a lot to be moved by the sound of a
> Nagra IV.S or even III. Even if we don't get to use them much anymore we
> find it more beautifull on -say- a voice than the sound of any digital
> recorder on the market today (with the same mike).
> It is nothing new to say that with the digital era what we gained in dynamic
> range and absence of hiss we lost it in warmth and flexibility.
> Ok a neumann doesn't sound like a schoeps that doesn't sound like a
> sennheiser but all of them sound better if you plug them in a Nagra than in
> a Fostex !
>
> To skip the preamp is revolutionary and very convenient but on the other
> hand we might loose yet another ability to give our sound some personality
> over the digital workflow.
>
> For me a beautifull sound is everything except flat.
> We can debate over the concept of beauty but that would be another thread
> (why not actually?).
>
> Regards
> Fred Salles
>
> PS: that said I too welcome the innovation. I am not worried and as Noah
> Timan said we've got a while yet.
Bon Jour Fred,
Several thoughts. Yes the preamp is very important and it is the combination
of the preamp and mic that create the final sound.
Transparency is important. GML, Grace and Great River, Hardy, Jensen and
Millennia Media preamps are testament to that.
I would, however, argue that the successful divide to digital has been
crossed. In a side experiment I did several years ago while reviewing three
Neumann M150 mics in Decca Tree through GML preamps, we compared the playback
of a Studer 2" and a Radar24 (with its better than stock A/Ds) at a studio
known for its love of analog and its hate of digital.
At the end of the session, we were tasked with identifying the two
recordings. No one could do it consistently until one of the engineers locked
onto the head bump on the Studer. So the non-lonearity of the Studer gave it
away. They had no other problems with the "digital sound" and soon purchased
a Radar24 with the same A/D converters.
That was a number of years ago and, for the most part, I think much of todays
digital gear has left behind the problems of earlier digital recordings. What
remains is the brightness, the non-flatness, if you will, of some of the
microphones and mic/preamp combinations.
If you'll allow me a slight diversion; there are also a lot more nasty
sounding acoustic guitars out there than I ever imagined. I'm pretty spoiled.
I got lucky when I was a young man and bought a D28S Martin which I still use
to record. When I hear some of the acoustic guitars that come in here, I am
shocked. Nasty, brittle spikey sounding boxes. The last thing I'd want would
be an accurate recording! So we agree there.
As to your preference for "non-flat", I'm not quite sure what that is for
you. I think a lot of non-flat mics and preamps resulted from the analog tape
days where HF were lost as soon as the tape wrapped and magnetic bleeding
occurred. Thankfully, we no longer have to compensate" for HF tape loss.
For me, a Neumann KM 184 has a "non-flat" curve that's not flattering. I much
prefer the earlier, flatter (but not flat) KM-84 or Schoeps CMC64, cmc641.
None of them are flat-flat, but I like them a lot more than the "me too"
mics with tizzy top ends that come from China.
Some folks don't like the AKG C414; saying it's too tizzy and thumpy. I
suggest that they try a C414 with a GML or Neve preamp; even an Amek Neve
9098 or the forementioned Jensen. Wow, what a difference. Probably not flat,
but rich and thick instead of tizzy and thumpy.
What do you think?
Regards,
Ty Ford
-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Ty Ford
(in article <1164453819....@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>):
> Hey Folks:
>
> some questions:
>
> - how do we make level adjustments with these digital mikes? Often I
> fell the need to raise or lower the recording level of a certain mike,
> so I can achieve a better balance or a better sound perspective.
Beyer did that years ago (before Neumann and Schoeps) with their digital mic.
Don't know how they did it, but there was a two button toggle on the
interface box.
I remember being pretty impressed by how quiet that mic was.
Regards
wildt®ax
tonym...@gmail.com schrieb:
> Hey Folks:
>
> some questions:
>
> - how do we make level adjustments with these digital mikes? Often I
> fell the need to raise or lower the recording level of a certain mike,
> so I can achieve a better balance or a better sound perspective.
Just use the fader on your digital mixer.
frank.
Fred Salles
Thanks for your input and for opening up my knowledge of preamps (I am far
from knowing the sound of all of the brand you mentionned !).
I am familiar with Neve though and so agree completely with you about your
suggestion for the C414.
That is a mike that i too don't consider flat but -worse- rather agressive
!!
Yes my meaning of the word flat ("plat" in french) is a sound that would be
excessively transparent, without any "soul" nor character, both in term of
texture and in term of space.
My taste goes for warmth and sweetness, thickness but precision, and a sense
of space (one of my favorite mike for the sense of space is the Beyer
M160...).
I use schoeps most of the time (also mk4 and mk41caps) they have this very
distinctive color in the medium that makes them unmistakable, and offer the
perfect balance between warmth and precision.
Although I must admit for my "everyday jobs" (I am into documentary
preferably now) I use a rather "flat" mixer, my SQN4S-IVe, for its
near-perfect ergonomy, I try whenever I can (eg: voice over) to plug my
schoeps in a warmer mixer like the late EAA Micromix (some here say it was
the french Neve) or the M3i, another french mixer but recent one, that has
the most beautifull sound of the portable mixers I know (too bad its
ergonomy sucks...).
To go back to the word flat, it is to me like a singer that would be a
perfect technician, a virtuoso, but would sing with no soul, no emotion.
That is a bit what I feel often with portable digital recorders.
You are right when you say the successful divide to digital has been crossed
today, and one can find its own favorite set up mikes/preamp/recorder that
suits one's taste, espescially in a studio.
But even though there are now more satisfying choices in the portable gear
than during the DAT era, I personally still have to come across a portable
digital set up that would give me the same emotion than when I have the
chance to plug my schoeps in a Nagra and roll the tape.
To be honest I haven't listen to all the portable mixers and recorders on
the market (and I still need to listen to the Nagra V !!) but I just mean to
explain why I have the feeling that the quest for perfection implied by the
all-digital advancement is a limiting one for the sound recordist.
I recently went back to fiction on a short for fun. It took place over 3
seasons in the countryside with 6 kids. The subject and tone of the story
(dreams and nostalgia) made me choose to work on a Nagra IVs over the
Cantar, although a collegue of mine who started the first session of the
shoot did record on his Cantar -we both work with schoeps. After transfering
the sounds on my computer we did a listening session with the director.
Listening to steps of the kids walking in the grass she immediately spotted
the difference in sound and loved the nagra's one so much she now wants to
re-record on nagra some sounds they did in the first session !
A friend of mine just bought a neat-condition Nagra III pilot, the mono full
tape recorder of the 60's, he invited me for some test. We plugged in it
(through his M3I cause no 48v) a MKH 50 -a mike that I usually find flat...
We were almost moved to tears. No hiss. A warm, thick and clear sound that
took us in another space. Like we never heard this mike before. (I am sure I
would feel the same if I'd get a chance to play your Martin !)
And we saddly wondered: why on earth did we lost that ?
Best regards,
Fred
"Ty Ford" <tyre...@comcast.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
6aWdnQ1u_8Nq0fXY...@comcast.com...
>
> Bon Jour Fred,
>
> Several thoughts. Yes the preamp is very important and it is the
combination
> of the preamp and mic that create the final sound.
>
> Transparency is important. GML, Grace and Great River, Hardy, Jensen and
> Millennia Media preamps are testament to that.
>
> I would, however, argue that the successful dIivide to digital has been