rock vocals microphone?
John Stumbles
mates often record themselves jamming and don't have a suitable mike. They
tend to record into PCs (or Macs) and I guess might want to bung it into
guitar amps or various bits of domestic audio kit they have around. Apart
from vocals I guess it might be used recording acoustic guitars.
It definitely needs to be robust and, having some idea what any sort of
serious mics can cost, priced at the Santa-friendly end of the range :-)
Apart from suggestions of what makes & models to go for (or avoid) can
folks guide me through the technology? I guess we're looking at 'dynamic'
(i.e. moving-coil?) with cardioid pattern and some sort of built-in or
add-on pop filters, but no doubt you can get kit with built-in preamps,
bluetooth and teasmades these days - I'm a bit out of touch ...
Oh and I guess it needs to look cool too ;-)
--
John Stumbles
What do you mean, talking about it isn't oral sex?
Don Pearce
wrote:
Don't know how deep Santa's pockets are, of course, but standard fare
for rock musicians is the Shure SM58 (between �80 and �100,
typically). It isn't a mic you'd use for recording an orchestra, but
it will do a fine job of miking an electric guitar, as well as being
more properly a stage vocal mic.
If this is too steep, I can have another rethink.
d
Keith G
"John Stumbles" <john.s...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:7nolgbF...@mid.individual.net...
If you are recording to a PC you might want to cut the crap and go straight
to a USB mic - Samson do a number of models which, if the one I have is
anything to go by, will all be very good:
http://www.samsontech.com/products/productpage.cfm?prodID=1810
Only serious restriction to bear in mind is the relatively short max. cable
length which might be as low as 5 or 10 metres and I'm not sure (pun
avoided) about 'looking cool'....??
Dave Plowman (News)
John Stumbles <john.s...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> My 16-yo budding rock guitar hero son is after a microphone. He and his
> mates often record themselves jamming and don't have a suitable mike.
> They tend to record into PCs (or Macs) and I guess might want to bung it
> into guitar amps or various bits of domestic audio kit they have around.
> Apart from vocals I guess it might be used recording acoustic guitars.
Perhaps the definitive for this sort of thing is the SM58 - although it's
of more use where you're feeding a PA system of some sort as it helps
prevent feedback. Personally I don't much like them, but they are a
standard and very robust.
> It definitely needs to be robust and, having some idea what any sort of
> serious mics can cost, priced at the Santa-friendly end of the range :-)
You'd have to give a figure. They are close to 100 quid. Although being so
common you might find a mint boxed one on Ebay for less. And a variety of
clones.
> Apart from suggestions of what makes & models to go for (or avoid) can
> folks guide me through the technology? I guess we're looking at 'dynamic'
> (i.e. moving-coil?) with cardioid pattern and some sort of built-in or
> add-on pop filters, but no doubt you can get kit with built-in preamps,
> bluetooth and teasmades these days - I'm a bit out of touch ...
There's a big variety for all sorts of uses, but a good balanced output
dynamic will satisfy most. You might need to use a balanced to unbalanced
transformer to feed a high impedance input, though.
> Oh and I guess it needs to look cool too ;-)
The SM58 is perhaps the most seen vocal mic on TV and at gigs. And many of
the hand held radio mics use its capsule.
--
* I like you. You remind me of when I was young and stupid
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Dave Plowman (News)
Keith G <k...@moirac.adsl24.co.uk> wrote:
> If you are recording to a PC you might want to cut the crap and go
> straight to a USB mic - Samson do a number of models which, if the one
> I have is anything to go by, will all be very good:
> http://www.samsontech.com/products/productpage.cfm?prodID=1810
Wonder just how well it works as a hand held vocal mic for a teenage boy...
--
*How many roads must a man travel down before he admits he is lost? *
Iain Churches
> mates often record themselves jamming and don't have a suitable mike. They
> tend to record into PCs (or Macs) and I guess might want to bung it into
> guitar amps or various bits of domestic audio kit they have around. Apart
> from vocals I guess it might be used recording acoustic guitars.
>
> It definitely needs to be robust and, having some idea what any sort of
> serious mics can cost, priced at the Santa-friendly end of the range :-)
>
> Apart from suggestions of what makes & models to go for (or avoid) can
> folks guide me through the technology? I guess we're looking at 'dynamic'
> (i.e. moving-coil?) with cardioid pattern and some sort of built-in or
> add-on pop filters, but no doubt you can get kit with built-in preamps,
> bluetooth and teasmades these days - I'm a bit out of touch ...
Hi John.
I would recommend the AKG C214, a large diaphram cardioid
pattern condenser mic, with a 20dB pad.
http://www.thomann.de/gb/akg_c214.htm
I don't know what is considered the "Santa-friendly end of the range"
any more, but Thomann have the AKG C214 as a bundle offer,
to include the mic, a padded alu case, a good quality K+M boom stand,
a 6m mic cable, and a pop shield for vocals, at GBP 333.
That's pretty amazing value, but I don't know what it might to
to Santa's blood pressure :-)
http://www.thomann.de/gb/akg_c214_set.htm
The mic needs a phantom supply.
> Oh and I guess it needs to look cool too ;-)
Only an old valve Neumann looks cooler!
Avoid cheap Chinese copy mics, T-Bone etc.
They sound rough and are not reliable :-(
Cheers
Iain
Laurence Payne
wrote:
>My 16-yo budding rock guitar hero son is after a microphone. He and his
>mates often record themselves jamming and don't have a suitable mike. They
>tend to record into PCs (or Macs) and I guess might want to bung it into
>guitar amps or various bits of domestic audio kit they have around. Apart
>from vocals I guess it might be used recording acoustic guitars.
You're asking for a vocal mic. Presumably they want to record the
whole band, not just vocals? How are the other instruments getting
into the computer?
Laurence Payne
<Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>> My 16-yo budding rock guitar hero son is after a microphone. He and his
>> mates often record themselves jamming and don't have a suitable mike. They
>> tend to record into PCs (or Macs) and I guess might want to bung it into
>> guitar amps or various bits of domestic audio kit they have around. Apart
>> from vocals I guess it might be used recording acoustic guitars.
>>
>> It definitely needs to be robust and, having some idea what any sort of
>> serious mics can cost, priced at the Santa-friendly end of the range :-)
>Hi John.
>
>I would recommend the AKG C214, a large diaphram cardioid
>pattern condenser mic, with a 20dB pad.
>
>http://www.thomann.de/gb/akg_c214.htm
I think this is a wind-up :-)
Iain Churches
"Laurence Payne" <l...@laurencepayne.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tpafh51upvfovflhn...@4ax.com...
A clockwork microphone?
Laurence Payne
<Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>>>I would recommend the AKG C214, a large diaphram cardioid
>>>pattern condenser mic, with a 20dB pad.
>>>
>>>http://www.thomann.de/gb/akg_c214.htm
>>
>> I think this is a wind-up :-)
>
>A clockwork microphone?
About as much use as one, for the stated application :-)
Iain Churches
This is a very popular/versatile mic see often in budget
demo/project studios.
Used with the pop shield supplied it sounds good on
vocals, and the 20dB pad makes it ideal for a use with
an guitar amp.
John Stumbles
> You're asking for a vocal mic. Presumably they want to record the
> whole band, not just vocals? How are the other instruments getting
> into the computer?
Other instruments are mostly electric guitars, and they're multi-tracking.
Though I was also going to ask about mixers ...
--
John Stumbles
The clairvoyants' meeting has been cancelled due to unforseen circumstances.
John Stumbles
> Only an old valve Neumann looks cooler!
Did they have 'cool' in Glen Miller's day? ;-)
--
John Stumbles
Don Pearce
wrote:
>On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:01:39 +0000, Laurence Payne wrote:
>
>> You're asking for a vocal mic. Presumably they want to record the
>> whole band, not just vocals? How are the other instruments getting
>> into the computer?
>
>Other instruments are mostly electric guitars, and they're multi-tracking.
>Though I was also going to ask about mixers ...
Behringer is your friend here. Fine performance, and cost bugger all.
d
Don Pearce
wrote:
>On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 13:13:19 +0200, Iain Churches wrote:
>
>> Only an old valve Neumann looks cooler!
>
>Did they have 'cool' in Glen Miller's day? ;-)
When you are cool, you don't have to worry about being cool.
d
Iain Churches
> On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 13:13:19 +0200, Iain Churches wrote:
>
>> Only an old valve Neumann looks cooler!
>
> Did they have 'cool' in Glen Miller's day? ;-)
Glenn Miller wasn't cool, but Duke Elington certainly was:-)
http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches/Music/EllingtonCool.mp3
Iain
David Looser
news:rJORm.47471$La7....@uutiset.elisa.fi...
>
> "John Stumbles" <john.s...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:7npqfsF...@mid.individual.net...
>> On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 13:13:19 +0200, Iain Churches wrote:
>>
>>> Only an old valve Neumann looks cooler!
>>
>> Did they have 'cool' in Glen Miller's day? ;-)
>
> Glenn Miller wasn't cool,
Says who?
David.
Keith G
> news:7npqfsF...@mid.individual.net...
>> On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 13:13:19 +0200, Iain Churches wrote:
>>
>>> Only an old valve Neumann looks cooler!
>>
>> Did they have 'cool' in Glen Miller's day? ;-)
>
> Glenn Miller wasn't cool,
Correct.
but Duke Elington certainly was:-)
Also correct.
So was Lionel Hampton and about a thousand others....
@:-)
Iain Churches
"Keith G" <k...@moirac.adsl24.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hf8er7$1oov$1...@energise.enta.net...
Hampton is a very good example, in same way that
Milt Jackson and John Lewis are "cool"
In fact, in 30s/40s and 50s music, it is hard to
think of anyone less cool than Miller. But then again,
he certainly wasn't hot like Harry James, Chick Webb
or Louis Armstrong either:-)
Iain
Iain Churches
"David Looser" <david....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:7nprpoF...@mid.individual.net...
To answer a question with a question:
Do you think he was "cool" David?
It's all relative I suppose. Compared with Ellington,
Basie, Stan Kenton, Charlie Parker. Dizzie Gillespie,
Thelonious Monk, and a huge number of others,
Miller was definately not "cool".
Even in his day his music, was was regarded
as "predictably glitzy" ) But then again, nothing succeeds
like success, and the clinking of the cash register is
music to one and all:-)
When I worked for RCA there was an old
good-news/bad news joke which went:
The good news is that Elvis is dead. The record presses
are running 24/7 to keep up with the demand.
The bad news is that Glenn Miller's plane has just landed.
He wants his royalties.
Many who know about Miller both as a player and an
arranger think he was at his finest when playing with
Ray Noble.
But the film is fun, and James Stewart fills the role of
Glenn Miller well, even if they get the concept of the
"Miller Sound" totally wrong. It probably doesn't do
to try to keep to the facts when writing a good script:-)
If you listen to his arrangements for Ray Noble and the
Dorsey Brothers, you will hear how the Miller sound
really evolved.
Iain
David Looser
>
> "David Looser" <david....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:7nprpoF...@mid.individual.net...
>> "Iain Churches" <Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
>> news:rJORm.47471$La7....@uutiset.elisa.fi...
>>>
>>> "John Stumbles" <john.s...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>>> news:7npqfsF...@mid.individual.net...
>>>> On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 13:13:19 +0200, Iain Churches wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Only an old valve Neumann looks cooler!
>>>>
>>>> Did they have 'cool' in Glen Miller's day? ;-)
>>>
>>> Glenn Miller wasn't cool,
>>
>> Says who?
>
> To answer a question with a question:
> Do you think he was "cool" David?
>
OK, two can play at that game, how do you define "cool"?
David.
Dave Plowman (News)
Iain Churches <Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
> I would recommend the AKG C214, a large diaphram cardioid
> pattern condenser mic
Head firmly in the clouds again, Iain?
--
*I like cats, too. Let's exchange recipes.
Jim Lesurf
<david....@btinternet.com> wrote:
> "Iain Churches" <Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
> news:E%PRm.47518$La7....@uutiset.elisa.fi...
> OK, two can play at that game, how do you define "cool"?
Not knowing or caring if you are may be a part of it. :-)
Slainte,
Jim
--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
John Stumbles
> Behringer is your friend here. Fine performance, and cost bugger all.
What about their mikes? The only thing significantly under fifty squid on
http://www.dolphinmusic.co.uk/product/2022-shure-sm58.html is their
offering, and you get 3 for £33!
I'm sure they wouldn't measure up to an SM58 head-to-head, but for the
sort of money the Shures go for one could have a mixer and enough mikes to
do a couple of vocals and an acoustic simultaneously rather than
multitracked, and if they bork a mic it isn't the end of the world.
And they can buy their own SM58s when they start getting paid for gigs ;-)
--
John Stumbles
This message has been rot13 encrypted twice for added security
Dave Plowman (News)
John Stumbles <john.s...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:51:00 +0000, Don Pearce wrote:
> > Behringer is your friend here. Fine performance, and cost bugger all.
> What about their mikes? The only thing significantly under fifty squid on
> http://www.dolphinmusic.co.uk/product/2022-shure-sm58.html is their
> offering, and you get 3 for �33!
> I'm sure they wouldn't measure up to an SM58 head-to-head, but for the
> sort of money the Shures go for one could have a mixer and enough mikes
> to do a couple of vocals and an acoustic simultaneously rather than
> multitracked, and if they bork a mic it isn't the end of the world.
> And they can buy their own SM58s when they start getting paid for gigs
> ;-)
There was a mic looking a bit like a '58 in the local pound shop. Quite
heavy, too. I should have bought it just for the hell of it.
The best sounding cheap types are electrets. Often not too good at
handling high SPL, but can sound quite nice at normal levels.
> -
--
*To err is human. To forgive is against company policy.
Arny Krueger
message news:50c4167...@davenoise.co.uk
> The best sounding cheap types are electrets.
There are inexpensive mics that are externally biased and accepted in the
US as being "good sounding".
Several models from MXL come to mind.
By traditional standards, even mics from Rode are "inexpensive".
> Often not
> too good at handling high SPL, but can sound quite nice
> at normal levels.
Isn't it pretty well known that the idea that electret mics can't handle
high levels is actually a myth?
One mic that violates that rule is the DPA 4007.
Eiron
> "Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:50c4167...@davenoise.co.uk
>> Often not
>> too good at handling high SPL, but can sound quite nice
>> at normal levels.
>
> Isn't it pretty well known that the idea that electret mics can't handle
> high levels is actually a myth?
No, that's just a legend.
http://www.linkwitzlab.com/sys_test.htm#Mic
--
Eiron.
Iain Churches
> In article <i3NRm.47445$La7....@uutiset.elisa.fi>,
> Iain Churches <Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>> I would recommend the AKG C214, a large diaphram cardioid
>> pattern condenser mic
>
> Head firmly in the clouds again, Iain?
It's a very popular and ubiquitous medium-budget mic
Very good quality for the money.
Robust and reliable.
It may, or may not meet Santa's budget criteria.
The OP did not specify a price range.
Iain
Iain Churches
Sorry. No spoon-feeding:-)
Miles Davis has the answer,
So has Bird, Thelonious Monk, Lester Young,
Michael Brecker, Billy Strayhorn, Bill May and the
rest of the names I mentioned which you so carefully
snipped, plus many many others.
Classical music can be cool too. Shostakovich String
Quartets are about as cool as they come. Likewise
RVW.
Discussions on music are frowned upon by our
groupmeister, Dave P. So let's talk about music:-)
It would be interesting to discuss Miller in depth,
if you are willing and able do so, David.
But I still don't know if yuou think he is/was "cool" :-)
Iain
Don Pearce
wrote:
>On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:51:00 +0000, Don Pearce wrote:
>
>> Behringer is your friend here. Fine performance, and cost bugger all.
>
>What about their mikes? The only thing significantly under fifty squid on
>http://www.dolphinmusic.co.uk/product/2022-shure-sm58.html is their
>offering, and you get 3 for £33!
>
>I'm sure they wouldn't measure up to an SM58 head-to-head, but for the
>sort of money the Shures go for one could have a mixer and enough mikes to
>do a couple of vocals and an acoustic simultaneously rather than
>multitracked, and if they bork a mic it isn't the end of the world.
>
>And they can buy their own SM58s when they start getting paid for gigs ;-)
I'm sure that right now for the kids looking cool is just as important
as having the last decibel of frequency response spot on. Hell, it'll
probably make them perform better too. I'd go for that deal if I were
you. Have you given a thought to all the ancillaries, though? Mike
stands, long cables etc?
d
Dave Plowman (News)
Arny Krueger <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> > Often not
> > too good at handling high SPL, but can sound quite nice
> > at normal levels.
> Isn't it pretty well known that the idea that electret mics can't handle
> high levels is actually a myth?
It's certainly not a myth with some of them. But I am talking cheap as
less than about $20.
> One mic that violates that rule is the DPA 4007.
I'm sure it's possible to make one which can.
--
*Drugs may lead to nowhere, but at least it's the scenic route *
David Looser
sounds far more like "low-budget" than "medium-budget" to me.
David.
Arny Krueger
> "Iain Churches" <Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
> news:6W2Sm.47795$La7....@uutiset.elisa.fi...
>>
>> "Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in
>> message news:50c3ec8...@davenoise.co.uk...
>>> In article <i3NRm.47445$La7....@uutiset.elisa.fi>,
>>> Iain Churches <Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>>>> I would recommend the AKG C214, a large diaphram
>>>> cardioid pattern condenser mic
>>> Head firmly in the clouds again, Iain?
No lie! This mic has a street price of almost $600 in the US. Just
looking at it, I can tell that it won't pass the critical-for-teenage-use
nail pounding test.
>> It's a very popular and ubiquitous medium-budget mic
>> Very good quality for the money.
>> Robust and reliable.
How does it pound nails? Any mic that can't sink any number of 6 penny
nails and still keep working will quickly be scattered broken parts in the
hands of your average 16 year old.
Did I tell you about the time I saw a SM58 used as a door stop by a teenage
band? BTW, this was no light residential door but a major entrance door with
a heavy hydraulic closer in a public venue.
>> It may, or may not meet Santa's budget criteria.
>> The OP did not specify a price range.
>>
> It was made clear that this was a first mic for a 16
> year-old wanabee. That sounds far more like "low-budget"
> than "medium-budget" to me.
For a 16-year-old, a SM58 or SM59 seems about right. Especially their
nail-pounding durability.
Someone before me bought a bunch of cheap Sennheiser dynamic mics for our
youth room sound system. This is a classic 14-16 year old usage situation.
The mics themselves have held up, but I had to replace every screw-on screen
ball because they fell apart.
I cannot imagine the kind of pudding a bunch of kids would make out of a mic
like the AKG C214. No matter, it would happen pretty quickly! For most of
us mortals who aren't million-dollar recording companies, $600 for this kind
of pudding is way beyond the pale.
Arny Krueger
>>> Often not
>>> too good at handling high SPL, but can sound quite nice
>>> at normal levels.
>> Isn't it pretty well known that the idea that electret
>> mics can't handle high levels is actually a myth?
> It's certainly not a myth with some of them. But I am
> talking cheap as less than about $20.
Are those really even microphones, in a professional sense?
>> One mic that violates that rule is the DPA 4007.
> I'm sure it's possible to make one which can.
I have a bunch of CAD vocal mics with electret elements that have proven to
be very resistant to overload, even in the hands of some pretty robust
vocalists.
Dave Plowman (News)
described as being for vocals - for approx 30 quid. I'd say that worth a
punt.
--
*INDECISION is the key to FLEXIBILITY *
Dave Plowman (News)
Arny Krueger <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> For a 16-year-old, a SM58 or SM59 seems about right. Especially their
> nail-pounding durability.
My favourite for this is the ol' Electrovoice 747. Survived being dropped
off the top of Wembley stadium. Can be plugged into a chassis mount XLR -
useful for testing. And for testing 100 volt line - it survives that too.
;-)
> Someone before me bought a bunch of cheap Sennheiser dynamic mics for
> our youth room sound system. This is a classic 14-16 year old usage
> situation. The mics themselves have held up, but I had to replace every
> screw-on screen ball because they fell apart.
I've replaced quite a few on '58s too. Dented ones don't look too good on
camera.
> I cannot imagine the kind of pudding a bunch of kids would make out of a
> mic like the AKG C214. No matter, it would happen pretty quickly! For
> most of us mortals who aren't million-dollar recording companies, $600
> for this kind of pudding is way beyond the pale.
Money is no object to Iain. He's told us this many times.
--
*It's o.k. to laugh during sex�.�.just don't point!
fredbloggstwo
>> My 16-yo budding rock guitar hero son is after a microphone. He and his
>> mates often record themselves jamming and don't have a suitable mike.
>> They
>> tend to record into PCs (or Macs) and I guess might want to bung it into
>> guitar amps or various bits of domestic audio kit they have around. Apart
>> from vocals I guess it might be used recording acoustic guitars.
>>
>> It definitely needs to be robust and, having some idea what any sort of
>> serious mics can cost, priced at the Santa-friendly end of the range :-)
>>
>> Apart from suggestions of what makes & models to go for (or avoid) can
>> folks guide me through the technology? I guess we're looking at 'dynamic'
>> (i.e. moving-coil?) with cardioid pattern and some sort of built-in or
>> add-on pop filters, but no doubt you can get kit with built-in preamps,
>> bluetooth and teasmades these days - I'm a bit out of touch ...
>
> Hi John.
>
> I would recommend the AKG C214, a large diaphram cardioid
>
> http://www.thomann.de/gb/akg_c214.htm
>
> I don't know what is considered the "Santa-friendly end of the range"
> any more, but Thomann have the AKG C214 as a bundle offer,
> to include the mic, a padded alu case, a good quality K+M boom stand,
> a 6m mic cable, and a pop shield for vocals, at GBP 333.
> That's pretty amazing value, but I don't know what it might to
> to Santa's blood pressure :-)
>
> http://www.thomann.de/gb/akg_c214_set.htm
>
> The mic needs a phantom supply.
>
>> Oh and I guess it needs to look cool too ;-)
>
>
> Only an old valve Neumann looks cooler!
>
> They sound rough and are not reliable :-(
>
> Cheers
> Iain
>
I assume you are taking the piss here - a LDC mic within 2 m of an teenager
is asking for a short lifetime and a waste of money. There is also the
problem of proving a phantom supply and adding a matching transformer to
match the 50k ohm input impedance of a typical guitar/pc amp input.
Better a Sure mic- reasonable quality, street cred and robustness.
Mike
Keith G
"fredbloggstwo" <fredblo...@hastings1066.plus.com> wrote
> I assume you are taking the piss here - a LDC mic within 2 m of an
> teenager is asking for a short lifetime and a waste of money. There is
> also the problem of proving a phantom supply and adding a matching
> transformer to match the 50k ohm input impedance of a typical guitar/pc
> amp input.
>
> Better a Sure mic- reasonable quality, street cred and robustness.
I still say a USB mic is the cleanest solution here if they are recording
straight to PC and the Samson mics I mentioned are very solidly built - any
teenage son of mine who couldn't use one without breaking it would get a
kicked arse....
John Stumbles
> I still say a USB mic is the cleanest solution here if they are
> recording straight to PC and the Samson mics I mentioned are very
> solidly built - any teenage son of mine who couldn't use one without
> breaking it would get a kicked arse....
Sounds like a good idea: any suggestion for specific makes models of USB
mics?
--
John Stumbles
Many hands make light work. Too many cooks spoil the broth.
John Stumbles
> I'm sure that right now for the kids looking cool is just as important
> as having the last decibel of frequency response spot on. Hell, it'll
> probably make them perform better too. I'd go for that deal if I were
> you. Have you given a thought to all the ancillaries, though? Mike
> stands, long cables etc?
For actual gigging they usually seem to have access to kit shared with
other bands: I think they'd use it for home recording so looking cool is
less important than actually having the mic and it working with their kit.
--
John Stumbles
Thank God I'm an atheist
Don Pearce
wrote:
>On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 08:11:16 +0000, Don Pearce wrote:
Ok, well for home recording you can certainly extend the choice
handily to a few USB mics. The only problem with that is that they
really don't have any further use outside the house. Maybe not a
problem for you. Of course it also means that you don't need a mixer,
although you will certainly need some multitrack recording software.
d
Keith G
> On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 17:51:11 +0000, Keith G wrote:
>
>> I still say a USB mic is the cleanest solution here if they are
>> recording straight to PC and the Samson mics I mentioned are very
>> solidly built - any teenage son of mine who couldn't use one without
>> breaking it would get a kicked arse....
>
> Sounds like a good idea: any suggestion for specific makes models of USB
> mics?
OK, I can only speak for the one I have which is a Samson C03U multi-pattern
and is a little bit more expensive than I thought:
http://www.dv247.com/microphones/samson-c03u-multi-pattern-usb-studio-condenser-microphone--34214
Nice review with a brief mic swap/compare in it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6BGIBy3GAg&feature=fvw
No phantom power required - one cable straight from the mic to the computer
and they greet each other like old friends in XP and Vista!
Sound quality is perfectly standard with no shortfalls that I am aware of
but, like I said earlier, explore the cable length limitations with USB - I
actually bought a 5m USB extension with 'relay station' in it (or whatever
it is) to give me 10m overall but it got hijacked for the Toppy TV recorder
and I never got round to trying it on the mic!!
Just for shits and giggles, here's a 10 second byte of my mate Shiny Nigel
on my copy a few years ago:
http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/Samson.mp3
(Just pissing about and ignore any background noise, we were less than a
metre from a very noisy computer! :-)
Dave Plowman (News)
Keith G <k...@moirac.adsl24.co.uk> wrote:
> I still say a USB mic is the cleanest solution here if they are
> recording straight to PC
So you'd recommend a USB turntable too for making CD copies of vinyl?
> and the Samson mics I mentioned are very
> solidly built - any teenage son of mine who couldn't use one without
> breaking it would get a kicked arse....
No surprise there.
--
*Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't*
Dave Plowman (News)
John Stumbles <john.s...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > I still say a USB mic is the cleanest solution here if they are
> > recording straight to PC and the Samson mics I mentioned are very
> > solidly built - any teenage son of mine who couldn't use one without
> > breaking it would get a kicked arse....
> Sounds like a good idea: any suggestion for specific makes models of USB
> mics?
Not if they intend buying a mixer later on.
--
*Snowmen fall from Heaven unassembled*
Laurence Payne
wrote:
>> You're asking for a vocal mic. Presumably they want to record the
>> whole band, not just vocals? How are the other instruments getting
>> into the computer?
>
>Other instruments are mostly electric guitars, and they're multi-tracking.
>Though I was also going to ask about mixers ...
And I'm going to ask just what you mean by "multi-tracking". What
program is the computer running? Are the individual tracks being
recorded simultaneously? If so, let's get off the subject of USB
microphones.
David Looser
news:4b2282f8....@news.eternal-september.org...
USB mics are inflexible. You can't connect them to a real mixer so you are
reduced to doing the balancing by dragging icons of slider knobs up and down
with the mouse. IME the law with these sorts of software level controls is
poor making it hard to get a precise level. Also IME the headroom with these
sorts of things is poor too, and you don't have the option of adding a pad
between the mic and the pre-amp.
All in all, IMO, USB mics are a really bad idea for this sort of
application.
David.
Don Pearce
Ok, I've never used a USB mic personally. All my mics are conventional
condensors, so I'm happy to take your word for this. That bundle from
Dolphin Music (I think it was) looks ever more attractive.
d
Dave Plowman (News)
David Looser <david....@btinternet.com> wrote:
> USB mics are inflexible. You can't connect them to a real mixer so you
> are reduced to doing the balancing by dragging icons of slider knobs up
> and down with the mouse. IME the law with these sorts of software level
> controls is poor making it hard to get a precise level. Also IME the
> headroom with these sorts of things is poor too, and you don't have the
> option of adding a pad between the mic and the pre-amp.
> All in all, IMO, USB mics are a really bad idea for this sort of
> application.
Can't agree more. A software 'mixer' might seem like a good idea for those
who haven't used the real thing, but in practice is horrid. Given just how
cheap a quite respectable small mixer is these days.
--
*You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me *
Keith G
'Pre-amp'?
'Never used one'?
These ole boys are just *guessing*, aren't they....???
@:-)
Keith G
"Keith G" <k...@moirac.adsl24.co.uk> wrote
>>>sorts of things is poor too, and you don't have the option of adding a
>>>pad
>>>between the mic and the pre-amp.
>>>
>>>All in all, IMO, USB mics are a really bad idea for this sort of
>>>application.
>>>
>>>David.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Ok, I've never used a USB mic personally. All my mics are conventional
>> condensors, so I'm happy to take your word for this. That bundle from
>> Dolphin Music (I think it was) looks ever more attractive.
>
>
>
> 'Pre-amp'?
>
> 'Never used one'?
>
> These ole boys are just *guessing*, aren't they....???
Maybe I should have included these cut and pastes from the manufacturer's
webpage:
http://www.samsontech.com/products/productpage.cfm?prodID=1878&brandID=2
"The Samson C03U will work without the SoftPre applet software using the
standard drivers included in your computer's operating system. However if
you would like added functionality of the Samson SoftPre applet (Input Level
Meter, Volume control, High-pass filter and Phase Switch), you may download
the appropriate one for your operating system at our SoftPre Page."
"Plugs in directly to any computer with a USB interface
Switchable Supercardioid, Omni, and Figure-8 Pickup Patterns
High Quality A/D Converter with 16-Bit, 48kHz Sampling Rate
Dual Large 19mm Diaphragm Elements
Switchable High-Pass Filter and 10 dB Pad
Smooth, Flat Frequency Response
USB cable and carry pouch included"
Lke I'm on *commission* or anything....
John Stumbles
> Not if they intend buying a mixer later on.
Thought I saw a mixer with USB inputs ...
--
John Stumbles
John Stumbles
> Maybe I should have included these cut and pastes from the
> manufacturer's webpage:
>
> http://www.samsontech.com/products/productpage.cfm?prodID=1878&brandID=2
>
grep -i Linux http://www.samsontech.com/products/productpage.cfm?
prodID=1878&brandID=2 .... ptui! ;-)
--
John Stumbles
John Stumbles
> And I'm going to ask just what you mean by "multi-tracking". What
> program is the computer running? Are the individual tracks being
> recorded simultaneously? If so, let's get off the subject of USB
> microphones.
No I mean they record one track after another. Note sure what s/w they're
using - I think one of the lads has one of those evil[1] things with a
half-consumed fruit as a logo :-)
[1] http://objectiveministries.org/creation/propaganda.html#APPLE
--
John Stumbles
David Looser
> On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 23:46:30 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>
>> Not if they intend buying a mixer later on.
>
> Thought I saw a mixer with USB inputs ...
>
There are plenty of mixers with USB outputs, can't say I'm aware of any with
USB *inputs*.
Anyway what is the point in using USB microphones with a mixer?
David.
Don Pearce
wrote:
>On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 00:35:53 +0000, Laurence Payne wrote:
OK, by far the easiest and most intuitive way of doing this is normal
mics into a normal mixer. That can plug into a normal sound card on
any computer - even one of those evil empire fruit jobs. It also has
the advantage of maximum flexibility, and you can use everything for
other purposes too. The mixer can even be used for performances if
they (ok, you) decide to buy a high power PA and speakers. So it is a
question of whether you want to go along a route which is essentially
a dead end with USB or keep all your options open with a more
conventional method.
d
mkm
and live.
Don Pearce
>Google Shure SM58 USB. Shure sm58 with usb adapter, use with computer
>and live.
The 58 is already a little beyond Santa's budget.
d
David Looser
>
> No I mean they record one track after another. Note sure what s/w they're
> using - I think one of the lads has one of those evil[1] things with a
> half-consumed fruit as a logo :-)
>
> [1] http://objectiveministries.org/creation/propaganda.html#APPLE
>
Thanks for the link. :-)
I just fell about reading it. It was hard to decide whether this website was
for real, or was a spoof.
I particularly liked this quote:-
"That's right, new Macs are based on Darwinism! While they currently don't
advertise this fact to consumers, it is well known among the computer elite,
who are mostly Atheists and Pagans. Furthermore, the Darwin OS is released
under an "Open Source" license, which is just another name for Communism."
David.
Keith G
John I believe I detect a little joke in there?
My suggestion for a USB mic was in response to:
"My 16-yo budding rock guitar hero son is after a microphone."
"They tend to record into PCs (or Macs)"
"Apart from vocals I guess it might be used recording acoustic guitars."
"It definitely needs to be robust"
"priced at the Santa-friendly end of the range"
IOW, a *recording* (not PA) mic which is good quality, robust, connects to a
computer and doesn't cost the earth...??
The Samson mic I suggested will do all those things in spades and is sold
metal-bodied (weighs about 525 gm according to a little set of kitchen
scales here which went all the way round the dial past the 12 o'clock
mark!) - so you could use it as a cosh and the USB cable is an A/B USB
'printer' cable - if you trod on it while handling the mic it would only
pull straight out with no harm done and you don't need to worry about
pre-amplification hassles, power supplies &c.
(It's a *slam-dunk* in my book, but you pays yer money...?? ;-)
Anyway, since I posted it, I notice my 'Shiny Nigel' byte clips at 3
seconds:
http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/Samson.mp3
That's absolutely nothing to do with the mic - it was a strange -6 dB 'glass
ceiling' I was getting (and may still be) in Sound Forge on *mono*
recordings back then!!
@:-)
Dave Plowman (News)
Perhaps you can. But just why you would want one escapes me. Balanced mic
cable and connectors have been around for a long time and are pretty
robust, unlike USB which simply never meant for this sort of use. They can
also be used on very long runs.
--
*What do little birdies see when they get knocked unconscious? *
John Stumbles
> There are plenty of mixers with USB outputs, can't say I'm aware of any
> with USB *inputs*.
>
> Anyway what is the point in using USB microphones with a mixer?
Well, *if* there were mixers with USB inputs then one could regard USB as
just another connection technology, like balanced, unbalanced, high-
medium- or low-impedance, high- or low-level etc - just digital in this
case.
Actually a mixer with USB out seems like what son & heir really wants -
at present he's recording via the soundcard input of his laptop which
he's having some problems with.
--
John Stumbles
John Stumbles
> "John Stumbles" <john.s...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> grep -i Linux http://www.samsontech.com/products/productpage.cfm?
>> prodID=1878&brandID=2 .... ptui! ;-)
>
> John I believe I detect a little joke in there?
it's a fair cop guv ;-)
> My suggestion for a USB mic was in response to:
---8<--- snip pros for USB mics ---8<---
sounds good, but at about the lower end of the SM58 price range it's
either 1 mic (SM58 or Samson USB) or a mixer and maybe a pack of 3
Behringer mikes thrown in from the fat hairy git 'oop North.
Also on a technical level: although (as I ventured in another post) USB
could be regarded as just another interconnection technology, it would
seem to have two significant disadvantages:
1: USB is pretty limited on cable length
2: with digital, in general (not just USB) there must be a clipping level
which must be set in the analogue electronics before the a->d i.e. in the
mic itself. For this to be set high enough not to be a problem at the
highest possible sound levels at the mic itself (e.g. screamer-type
vocalist snogging the mic grille?) there must surely be a compromise with
the lowest sound levels which can be reproduced faithfully, whereas in
the case of analogue mic interconnects the mixer operator[*] gets to
choose the compromise between high-level overload and low-levels buried
in noise at the time of recording.
Or am I missing something?
[*] I'll save Dave and others the apoplexy that would surely ensue by my
calling them recording/sound engineers ;-)
--
John Stumbles
John Stumbles
> "John Stumbles" <john.s...@ntlworld.com> wrote
>>
>> No I mean they record one track after another. Note sure what s/w
>> they're using - I think one of the lads has one of those evil[1] things
>> with a half-consumed fruit as a logo :-)
>>
>> [1] http://objectiveministries.org/creation/propaganda.html#APPLE
>>
>>
> Thanks for the link. :-)
>
> I just fell about reading it. It was hard to decide whether this website
> was for real, or was a spoof.
If it is it's admirably tongue-in-cheek :-)
Also check out
http://objectiveministries.org/creation/pterosaurs.html
I particularly love the picture of Adam and Eve with genitalia 'artfully'
obscured by pterosaur; the "remains of wicked pterodactyl found in Flood
sediments. Note penitent stance preserved at moment of death" and Moses'
"pterosaur-scaring device"!
--
John Stumbles
David Looser
> On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 12:00:13 +0000, David Looser wrote:
>
>
> Well, *if* there were mixers with USB inputs then one could regard USB as
> just another connection technology, like balanced, unbalanced, high-
> medium- or low-impedance, high- or low-level etc - just digital in this
> case.
Yes, but a rather poor one. If you can use balanced analogue then do so,
it's cheaper and better.
>
> Actually a mixer with USB out seems like what son & heir really wants -
> at present he's recording via the soundcard input of his laptop which
> he's having some problems with.
>
USB out is fine, no problem with that as a way of getting audio into a
computer. But please don't think that USB is a sensible way of connecting
microphones to mixers.
David.
Dave Plowman (News)
John Stumbles <john.s...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> 2: with digital, in general (not just USB) there must be a clipping
> level which must be set in the analogue electronics before the a->d
> i.e. in the mic itself. For this to be set high enough not to be a
> problem at the highest possible sound levels at the mic itself (e.g.
> screamer-type vocalist snogging the mic grille?) there must surely be a
> compromise with the lowest sound levels which can be reproduced
> faithfully, whereas in the case of analogue mic interconnects the mixer
> operator[*] gets to choose the compromise between high-level overload
> and low-levels buried in noise at the time of recording.
> Or am I missing something?
The better quality analogue mics can't usually handle anything that can be
thrown at them - they usually have a switchable pad on them. Often 10 and
20 dB. But the mixer is more likely to have a poorer dynamic range than
the mic. However, not much has a wide dynamic range enough to be a
problem. Unless you wanted to use the same settings for recording quiet
distant things and loud close ones. But then the system you try to play it
on will object too. ;-)
> [*] I'll save Dave and others the apoplexy that would surely ensue by my
> calling them recording/sound engineers ;-)
;-)
Operator suits me just fine.
--
*Everybody lies, but it doesn't matter since nobody listens*
John Stumbles
> My local Lidl has Yamaha dynamic mics with desk stand and pop shield -
> described as being for vocals - for approx 30 quid. I'd say that worth a
> punt.
Thanks, I'll take a look, though IIRC ours had a load of instruments and
stuff a month or two back so maybe I've missed it here.
--
John Stumbles
Keith G
> On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 14:59:04 +0000, Keith G wrote:
>
>> "John Stumbles" <john.s...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>
>>> grep -i Linux http://www.samsontech.com/products/productpage.cfm?
>>> prodID=1878&brandID=2 .... ptui! ;-)
>>
>> John I believe I detect a little joke in there?
>
> it's a fair cop guv ;-)
>
>
>> My suggestion for a USB mic was in response to:
> ---8<--- snip pros for USB mics ---8<---
>
> sounds good, but at about the lower end of the SM58 price range it's
> either 1 mic (SM58 or Samson USB) or a mixer and maybe a pack of 3
> Behringer mikes thrown in from the fat hairy git 'oop North.
OK, sounds good but it's some way off the original enquiry for 'a mic' to
record to computer.
>
> Also on a technical level: although (as I ventured in another post) USB
> could be regarded as just another interconnection technology, it would
> seem to have two significant disadvantages:
>
> 1: USB is pretty limited on cable length
Yes, 5m + 5m extension at the most, I suspect.
>
> 2: with digital, in general (not just USB) there must be a clipping level
> which must be set in the analogue electronics before the a->d i.e. in the
> mic itself. For this to be set high enough not to be a problem at the
> highest possible sound levels at the mic itself (e.g. screamer-type
> vocalist snogging the mic grille?)
OK, it's possible the Samson isn't at its best as a handheld mic anyway - I
haven't tried it! (Can't find me make-up and fright wig, so there's no point
in even trying, is there? ;-)
there must surely be a compromise with
> the lowest sound levels which can be reproduced faithfully, whereas in
> the case of analogue mic interconnects the mixer operator[*] gets to
> choose the compromise between high-level overload and low-levels buried
> in noise at the time of recording.
Na na na na, na na na na - not listening, not listening....
>
> Or am I missing something?
Dunno, but I suspect I might be!
@;-)
Laurence Payne
wrote:
>Well, *if* there were mixers with USB inputs then one could regard USB as
>just another connection technology, like balanced, unbalanced, high-
>medium- or low-impedance, high- or low-level etc - just digital in this
>case.
Unnecessarily complicated to give EVERY mic its own ADC though!
>Actually a mixer with USB out seems like what son & heir really wants -
>at present he's recording via the soundcard input of his laptop which
>he's having some problems with.
I played with a Zoom R16 recently. The user thought a self-contained
digital multitracker would be "easier" than a computer solution. We
spent a couple of hours fighting it, then installed the bundled copy
of Cubase LE. She could see exactly how THAT worked!
The point being, although a disaster as a multitrack recorder, the R16
made a very nice 8-input front end to Cubase on a PC. And a band
really should play together - they need to be VERY practiced and
organized in order to get any musical result out of one-at-a-time
tracking.
What's his problems with recording into the laptop? Noise?
Laurence Payne
wrote:
>2: with digital, in general (not just USB) there must be a clipping level
>which must be set in the analogue electronics before the a->d i.e. in the
>mic itself. For this to be set high enough not to be a problem at the
>highest possible sound levels at the mic itself (e.g. screamer-type
>vocalist snogging the mic grille?) there must surely be a compromise with
>the lowest sound levels which can be reproduced faithfully, whereas in
>the case of analogue mic interconnects the mixer operator[*] gets to
>choose the compromise between high-level overload and low-levels buried
>in noise at the time of recording.
>
>Or am I missing something?
You're missing how wide the dynamic range of even 16 digital bits
actually is!
Laurence Payne
wrote:
>Also check out
> http://objectiveministries.org/creation/pterosaurs.html
>I particularly love the picture of Adam and Eve with genitalia 'artfully'
>obscured by pterosaur; the "remains of wicked pterodactyl found in Flood
>sediments. Note penitent stance preserved at moment of death" and Moses'
>"pterosaur-scaring device"!
You can ALMOST see her minge through the pterosaur's semi-transparent
wing.
The pterosaur has a wicked gleam in its eye. The lump in its throat is
obviously Adam's genitals, which it has just devoured, despite his
attempt to divert attention to a bunch of grapes. It is endowed with
a remarkably large dick - tapered, no doubt, for aerodynamic reasons.
It is not erect, so we may deduce he isn't a gay pterosaur. It would
be interesting to compare a picture with him facing Eve.
Dave Plowman (News)
John Stumbles <john.s...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > My local Lidl has Yamaha dynamic mics with desk stand and pop shield -
> > described as being for vocals - for approx 30 quid. I'd say that worth a
> > punt.
> Thanks, I'll take a look, though IIRC ours had a load of instruments and
> stuff a month or two back so maybe I've missed it here.
Think it was the same here - just left over from then. They looked to have
about a dozen. Clapham Junction branch.
--
*When the going gets tough, the tough take a coffee break *
David Looser
news:5vfnh5p5cpa2qsigo...@4ax.com...
And isn't it nice to know that Adam and Eve were white, had Caucasian
features and modern hairstyles. They are curiously untanned despite lacking
both clothing and, presumably, sun-block!
David.
John Stumbles
> Unnecessarily complicated to give EVERY mic its own ADC though!
Price of electronics I expect it'll be cheaper to do so than to provide
high quality mic cables soon :-)
> I played with a Zoom R16 recently.
Nice looking kit but not in the Santa-friendly range ;-)
> What's his problems with recording into the laptop? Noise?
IIRC the problem is that the levels keep changing, as though there's some
sort of AGC operating. I think he's tried different recording s/w so it
seems to be in his laptop itself.
If there were low-end mixers with digital out, or a reasonably priced
external A->D module, that would be a more elegant solution than an A-D
buried in a machine full of noisy electronics with a mic-level input.
--
John Stumbles
John Stumbles
> You're missing how wide the dynamic range of even 16 digital bits
> actually is!
96dB? But is the electronics in the mic capable of filling the least
significant bits with real signal rather than noise and jitter, whilst
not getting beyond xFFFF under screamer-snogging conditions?
--
John Stumbles
John Stumbles
> ... so we may deduce he isn't a gay pterosaur. It would be
> interesting to compare a picture with him facing Eve.
"I say, does anyone know what became of Carutthers?"
"Last I heard of him he was out in Borneo living with an Oran-Utang."
"Male or female Orang-Utang?"
"Female, of course. Nothing 'odd' about Carutthers."
--
John Stumbles
David Looser
> On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 14:26:24 +0000, Laurence Payne wrote:
>
>
>> Unnecessarily complicated to give EVERY mic its own ADC though!
>
> Price of electronics I expect it'll be cheaper to do so than to provide
> high quality mic cables soon :-)
>
You still need cables, unless you are proposing to go "wireless" with all
the inherent problems that brings. The idea that digital transmission can
get away with cheaper cables than analogue is, shall be say, open to debate
:-)
>
> If there were low-end mixers with digital out, or a reasonably priced
> external A->D module, that would be a more elegant solution than an A-D
> buried in a machine full of noisy electronics with a mic-level input.
>
A mixer with USB out would be my prefered solution. Internal mic amps in
laptops are usually of v. poor quality.
David.
David Looser
Probably not, which is why I'd use analogue mics.
David.
Don Pearce
wrote:
>On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 14:28:41 +0000, Laurence Payne wrote:
Should be no problem at all. A typical mic will have a maximum level
of about 135dB, and a noise floor of perhaps 15dB. That leaves 120dB
of dynamic range - 24dB more than 16 bits can manage.
The latest state of the art puts mic noise floor down at about 5dB, so
that makes an extra 10dB for the total excess range. There are no
preamps that can handle 130dB dynamic range in one go, so you have to
choose a band of perhaps 80dB from within that and set your gain
controls to cover it. Even a 24 bit ADC will only handle a little over
100dB of range.
d
David Looser
Don Pearce
Sorry, I was still with an analogue mic into a preamp, so the preamp
gain. Obviously with a USB mic the manufacturer has to choose a 96dB
range and just cover that.
d
Iain Churches
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:mdmdnb-yz6pKcoXW...@giganews.com...
> "David Looser" <david....@btinternet.com> wrote in
> message news:7ns7msF...@mid.individual.net
>> "Iain Churches" <Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
>> news:6W2Sm.47795$La7....@uutiset.elisa.fi...
>>>
>>> "Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in
>>> message news:50c3ec8...@davenoise.co.uk...
>>>> In article <i3NRm.47445$La7....@uutiset.elisa.fi>,
>>>> Iain Churches <Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>>>>> I would recommend the AKG C214, a large diaphram
>>>>> cardioid pattern condenser mic
>
> How does it pound nails? Any mic that can't sink any number of 6 penny
> nails and still keep working will quickly be scattered broken parts in the
> hands of your average 16 year old.
I see. So you and yours cannot differentiate between a mic
and a hammer! That shows "Domine" and anything else you
might have "under construction" in a whole new light:-))
Iain
Dave Plowman (News)
Iain Churches <Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
> > How does it pound nails? Any mic that can't sink any number of 6
> > penny nails and still keep working will quickly be scattered broken
> > parts in the hands of your average 16 year old.
> I see. So you and yours cannot differentiate between a mic
> and a hammer! That shows "Domine" and anything else you
> might have "under construction" in a whole new light:-))
It shows knowledge of how mics are often handled in a rock environment,
Iain. Sadly.
On your ivory cloud I'm sure they are handled with clean white cotton
gloves and returned to their padded box afterwards.
But horses for courses. Would you have recommended your favourite mic for
FX use on a windy and wet racecourse?
Hint. Not all mics are used in a nice air conditioned studio.
--
*What do little birdies see when they get knocked unconscious? *
Jim Lesurf
> >On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 14:28:41 +0000, Laurence Payne wrote:
> >
> >> You're missing how wide the dynamic range of even 16 digital bits
> >> actually is!
> >
> >96dB? But is the electronics in the mic capable of filling the least
> >significant bits with real signal rather than noise and jitter, whilst
> >not getting beyond xFFFF under screamer-snogging conditions?
> Should be no problem at all. A typical mic will have a maximum level of
> about 135dB, and a noise floor of perhaps 15dB. That leaves 120dB of
> dynamic range - 24dB more than 16 bits can manage.
Erm.. you use 'dB' in two different ways above, which might puzzle some
readers.
> The latest state of the art puts mic noise floor down at about 5dB, so
> that makes an extra 10dB for the total excess range. There are no
> preamps that can handle 130dB dynamic range in one go, so you have to
> choose a band of perhaps 80dB from within that and set your gain
> controls to cover it. Even a 24 bit ADC will only handle a little over
> 100dB of range.
Erm again... IIRC your "little over" would be more than 40dB. I don't think
I'd describe it that way. Or is your point that no-one makes 24 ADCs that
have their noise/linearity limits below about 16-18bits?
Slainte,
Jim
--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Don Pearce
<no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <4b1cb5e6...@news.eternal-september.org>, Don Pearce
><sp...@spam.com> wrote:
>> On 6 Dec 2009 23:30:41 GMT, John Stumbles <john.s...@ntlworld.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> >On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 14:28:41 +0000, Laurence Payne wrote:
>> >
>> >> You're missing how wide the dynamic range of even 16 digital bits
>> >> actually is!
>> >
>> >96dB? But is the electronics in the mic capable of filling the least
>> >significant bits with real signal rather than noise and jitter, whilst
>> >not getting beyond xFFFF under screamer-snogging conditions?
>
>> Should be no problem at all. A typical mic will have a maximum level of
>> about 135dB, and a noise floor of perhaps 15dB. That leaves 120dB of
>> dynamic range - 24dB more than 16 bits can manage.
>
>Erm.. you use 'dB' in two different ways above, which might puzzle some
>readers.
>
I did - lazy of me. Of course the 135dB is a sound pressure level, all
the rest are relative levels.
>> The latest state of the art puts mic noise floor down at about 5dB, so
>> that makes an extra 10dB for the total excess range. There are no
>> preamps that can handle 130dB dynamic range in one go, so you have to
>> choose a band of perhaps 80dB from within that and set your gain
>> controls to cover it. Even a 24 bit ADC will only handle a little over
>> 100dB of range.
>
>Erm again... IIRC your "little over" would be more than 40dB. I don't think
>I'd describe it that way. Or is your point that no-one makes 24 ADCs that
>have their noise/linearity limits below about 16-18bits?
>
Yes, I'm talking about real 24 bit ADCs that typically offer at best
110dB of dynamic range for an audio signal. So they have 18 to 19 bits
of actual capability.
d
Don Pearce
<no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>Erm.. you use 'dB' in two different ways above, which might puzzle some
>readers.
OK, let me start again:
Should be no problem at all. A typical mic will have a maximum of
about 135dB SPL, and a noise floor of perhaps 15dB SPL. That leaves
120dB of dynamic range - 24dB more than 16 bits can manage.
The latest state of the art puts mic noise floor down at about 5dB
SPL, so that makes an extra 10dB for the total excess range. There are
no preamps that can handle 130dB dynamic range in one go, so you have
to choose a band of perhaps 80dB from within that and set your gain
controls to cover it. Even a 24 bit ADC will only handle a little over
100dB of range.
d
Laurence Payne
wrote:
>> What's his problems with recording into the laptop? Noise?
>
>IIRC the problem is that the levels keep changing, as though there's some
>sort of AGC operating. I think he's tried different recording s/w so it
>seems to be in his laptop itself.
>
>If there were low-end mixers with digital out, or a reasonably priced
>external A->D module, that would be a more elegant solution than an A-D
>buried in a machine full of noisy electronics with a mic-level input.
Well there are, but not for THAT low an interpretation of "low end"!
The Zoom I mentioned is remarkably low-priced for an 8-input mixer and
audio interface, with a multitrack recorder (of a sort) thrown in. Of
course, that's if he wants to record the whole band playing together.
If he's happy to build the song up one instrument at a time he only
needs a single in/out pair. But do check this is sufficient. If it's
a band, not just a single person playing the one-man-band game, they
should be playing together. Save up for something like this:
http://www.dv247.com/mixers/edirol-edirol-m-16dx-digital-mixer--38083
It's like the Zoom, but without the recorder - you let your computer
do that bit. So you get more mixer for the same sort of price.
Laurence Payne
>> You're missing how wide the dynamic range of even 16 digital bits
>> actually is!
>
>96dB? But is the electronics in the mic capable of filling the least
>significant bits with real signal rather than noise and jitter, whilst
>not getting beyond xFFFF under screamer-snogging conditions?
My point precisely! Though mic electronics don't jitter, that's a
digital thing.
Laurence Payne
wrote:
>> ... so we may deduce he isn't a gay pterosaur. It would be
>> interesting to compare a picture with him facing Eve.
>
>"I say, does anyone know what became of Carutthers?"
>
>"Last I heard of him he was out in Borneo living with an Oran-Utang."
>
>"Male or female Orang-Utang?"
>
>"Female, of course. Nothing 'odd' about Carutthers."
"...and he took to pig-sticking in QUITE the wrong way...."
Laurence Payne
wrote:
>> What's his problems with recording into the laptop? Noise?
>
>IIRC the problem is that the levels keep changing, as though there's some
>sort of AGC operating. I think he's tried different recording s/w so it
>seems to be in his laptop itself.
Did you say he's trying to record into a laptop's Mic input? Not
good, for several reasons. At the very least he needs an external
interface with a proper Line In. But see my other post. If you go
cheap and don't get what he REALLY needs, it's wasted money.
Arny Krueger
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:mdmdnb-yz6pKcoXW...@giganews.com...
>> "David Looser" <david....@btinternet.com> wrote in
>> message news:7ns7msF...@mid.individual.net
>>> "Iain Churches" <Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
>>> news:6W2Sm.47795$La7....@uutiset.elisa.fi...
>>>> "Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in
>>>> message news:50c3ec8...@davenoise.co.uk...
>>>>> In article <i3NRm.47445$La7....@uutiset.elisa.fi>,
>>>>> Iain Churches <Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>>>>>> I would recommend the AKG C214, a large diaphram
>>>>>> cardioid pattern condenser mic
>> How does it pound nails? Any mic that can't sink any
>> number of 6 penny nails and still keep working will
>> quickly be scattered broken parts in the hands of your
>> average 16 year old.
> I see. So you and yours cannot differentiate between a mic
> and a hammer!
We can tell the difference Iain, but sometimes young people who are
enthusiastic about music use that knowlege in ways that are adverse to the
pricey, relatively fragile microphone you senselessly recommended for use by
certain younger persons. Just another sad indication of how seriously you
are out of touch with everyday life, Iain.
Arny Krueger
news:hfbi6i$i64$2...@energise.enta.net
> "fredbloggstwo" <fredblo...@hastings1066.plus.com>
> wrote
>> I assume you are taking the piss here - a LDC mic within
>> 2 m of an teenager is asking for a short lifetime and a
>> waste of money. There is also the problem of proving a
>> phantom supply and adding a matching transformer to
>> match the 50k ohm input impedance of a typical guitar/pc
>> amp input.
>> Better a Sure mic- reasonable quality, street cred and
>> robustness.
> I still say a USB mic is the cleanest solution here if
> they are recording straight to PC and the Samson mics I
> mentioned are very solidly built - any teenage son of
> mine who couldn't use one without breaking it would get a
> kicked arse....
USB mics are very interesting products. Putting my cynical had on, I could
say that they are a good way to sell the same basic mic twice. First you
sell the mic to a beginner with the USB interface built in, and then you
sell the same basic mic to them again sans USB interface for use with the
mixer that they will eventually grow into.
Three other alternatives exist:
There is a class of product which is a mic preamp and USB interface in a
package that simply plugs into a usual kind of mic. MXL and a number of
others have them, and they don't cost a lot more than the normal price
premium for a mic with a built-in USB interface.
There are a number of inexpensive mixers that have built-in USB interfaces.
If you ever hope to record more than 2 instruments at the same time, then
they have their moments.
There are a number of very inexpensive USB interfaces that can be used with
just about any mixer (any standard kind of mic).
Any of the 3 alternatives are a tad more bulky and may take a little more
time and expertise to set up. Use of none of them are IME outside the mental
capabilities of a bright 16-year-old.
Arny Krueger
> IIRC the problem is that the levels keep changing, as
> though there's some sort of AGC operating.
It's called unskilled musicians.
There are a number of reasons why there are faders on mixing consoles, and
one is to track the waxings and wanings of performers.
In these days, you just record with lots of headroom, and fix it in the mix
on your computer. You've got two basic options:
(1) Adjust levels manually by clicking and dragging to mark excessively loud
or soft passages, and then use the appropriate software tool.
(2) Most audio editing software has dynamics processing functions that allow
you to systematically control peak levels.
> I think he's tried different recording s/w so it seems to be in his
> laptop itself.
The problem then is overly simplified software, or lack of skill of the
operator of said software.
> If there were low-end mixers with digital out,
There are. Alesis has a number of them.
> or a reasonably priced external A->D module,
Behringer sells several for $29.95 and up, as do many of their competitors.
> that would be a
> more elegant solution than an A-D buried in a machine
> full of noisy electronics with a mic-level input.
Most noise in amateur recordings is acoustic noise from the PC itself. Most
people who have thought about this problem for more than about 10 seconds
simply put the PC further away from the Mic.
Arny Krueger
Absolutely. They are designed for little cheap electret microphones and even
include a power source for them. Most laptops don't have line level inputs,
though a few have input jacks that automagically reconfigure themselves
depending on the source you plug into them.
One can buy really pretty good USB audio interfaces with line level inputs
starting under $30, and very good ones with inputs for professional-grade
mics for $80 an up.
Arny Krueger
> On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 14:28:41 +0000, Laurence Payne wrote:
>
>> You're missing how wide the dynamic range of even 16
>> digital bits actually is!
>
> 96dB?
Well 93 or so including the effects of the prerequisite dither.
This number is actually achieved by a number of relatively inexpensive audio
interfaces.
A good modern audio interface in a PC (on the system board) might be pushing
90 dB dynamic range.
> But is the electronics in the mic capable of
> filling the least significant bits with real signal
> rather than noise and jitter, whilst not getting beyond
> xFFFF under screamer-snogging conditions?
Most good mics can handle at least 120 dB SPL, and many go up into the
mid-130s. It takes a seriously loud scream very close to go up into the
130s with a single performer.
A good mic has a background noise level that is between 8 and 20 dB. So,
120 dB dynamic range is a distinct possibility. If the source is loud enough
you can bypass the mic preamp entirely and run the mic into a line input.
The hidden caveat here would be phantom power, but there are stand-alone
phantom sources.
There are inexpensive audio interfaces that can handle the probable output
of most microphones via their line input.
The more common noise limit to dynamic range is background noise in the
room. A common room in a house might have a noise level of 40 dB or more
SPL. A well-soundproofed large auditorium might have 25 dB SPL under ideal
conditions when empty, but turn on the heating, run a few cars around the
parking lot and add an audience or even just a small orchestra composed of
living breathing people, and you're back up into the 40 dB range.
Bottom line is that if you manage things skillfully, a recording interface
with 80-90 dB dynamic range is not going to be limiting factor. If you don't
manage things skillfully, one of the best recording interface with about 120
dB dynamic range could be a problem.
Arny Krueger
USB mics generally have one. It may be controlled by software, or there may
be knob somewhere.
Arny Krueger
news:4b24e8de...@news.eternal-september.org
The really good stuff comes close to 120 dB dynamic range. I think the eMu
0404 is in this class for under $200. Good converters have gotten pretty
cheap.
Don Pearce
wrote:
No, the 0404 only claims 111dB for its ADCs. The DAC is of course a
different matter.
d
Arny Krueger
The DAC side is speced at 116 dB.
Note that 111 is arithmetically closer to 120 than 100. ;-)
Don Pearce
wrote:
Yup - don't know where that 100dB number came from, as I always knew
it was light. Maybe the thread a while back about recording
headroom...?
d
Arny Krueger
Bringing it all back home - 100 dB is IME more than enough dynamic range to
capture just about anything musical that happens in the real world. Tons of
great-sounding work was done back in the day when SOTA was under 60 dB.
> d