In article , Keith G
scribeth thus

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 15:58:00 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:

On Thu, 7 Apr 2011 15:45:43 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


OK, Tony, here's my next door neighbour and very good friend Maurice:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...e%20fisher.jpg


Talking 'not posh' (he says he doesn't do 'posh'! :-) thus:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/Maurice-A.wav

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/Maurice-B.wav


(A and B naming convention is consistent with the previous recordings.)



Not going to chooses "better" for the simple reason that I've never
heard Maurice speak, but I'm going to say that mic A is not handling
this as well as B.

d

Are you by any chance using that odd valve pre-amp on the Neumann?


Yes, but what's odd about it? Anyway, can't wait for Tony, so:

Maurice-A is the Neumann and the tubey pre; Maurice-B is the Samson. On my
setup the Samson sounds slightly tinny by comparison but the 'sax player'
has picked it as best a few times now which is why I posted the comparison.

Here's Maurice's granddaughters - bilingual at the age of six, due to having
a Spanish mother:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/Girls01.wav


So, which mic was that on then?

Answers on a postcard....



Not on the best replay system here at the moment but..

I think A sounds a bit more relaxed and easier on the ear but thats not
a tremendous amount apart with them apart from level difference and
slightly lower noise on A. Seems a bit overall more noisy than it might
be?.

Be interesting to compare them level matched in somewhere like a radio
studio...
--
Tony Sayer

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Maurice-A is the Neumann and the tubey pre; Maurice-B is the Samson. On
my setup the Samson sounds slightly tinny by comparison but the 'sax
player' has picked it as best a few times now which is why I posted the
comparison.

I don't know what a 'Samson' is. Another pre-amp?


No a manufacturer. Like a lot of others sometimes rip off a European
design and make a copy .. sometimes with dire results sometimes better.

http://www.samsontech.com/products/b....cfm?brandID=2

a few more here..

http://www.dv247.com/microphones/


What they won't usually have is the robust part of the original
product..


Are you wanting a comparison between mics or trying to make some point
about your marvellous valve pre-amp? If so it will be the cheap mic
through the valve pre-amp and the expensive mic through some nasty solid
state one. And whatever else you can do to persuade others that valves
have some magic properties...


--
Tony Sayer

On Sat, 9 Apr 2011 11:15:13 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 16:59:20 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:



It is a C03U multi-pattern and I reckon it's rather good, but the problem
with it is I get such a tiny signal from it connected direct to the
computer
and can't see any way of increasing it before recording. Should I be using
some sort of pre-amplification or is it better to jack up the levels in
the
recording - I'm having to increase the signal at least +6dB..??



The Samson mic has a maximum SPL of 136dB. Assuming the girls were
speaking at 80dB, that leaves 56dB to make up in software to achieve
full scale. More worrying perhaps, dividing 56 by six, that is 9 of
the 16 bits unused. So it is effectively using a 7-bit ADC. That makes
for a considerable noise floor.


Two things I would query: the girls are not loud and where does FS come into
it?


FS is the starting point - where you work back from in calculating
this stuff. The Samson spec says that FS is at 136dB. 16 bit noise is
96 dB below that (by definition, can't be any better). That means that
the mic has a hiss level equivalent to 40dB - my study is quieter than
that, so the hiss would be very intrusive.

I assumed the girls to be at 80dB to be kind really. That would give a
signal to noise ratio of 40dB. In all probability they are nearer
70dB, which would leave you with just a 30dB signal to noise ratio. A
quick measure of the file shows it to be somewhere between the two.



As for the Neumann, it is currently being ruined by that preamp. Spend
30 quid on a small Behringer mixer with its exemplary preamps and find
out what it is truly capable of.


I would gladly do that and post comparisons, what model do you have in mind?
Amazon is a preferred source and I would like USB connectivity to connect to
a computer that has no other 'audio in' apart from the usual front panel
'pink' microphone minijack socket.


Maybe a little pricey, but the 1204USB mixer comes in at about £160.
You can get a XENYX 802 for £40-50, but you need to feed it into a
sound card.

d

"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message

It is a C03U multi-pattern and I reckon it's rather
good, but the problem with it is I get such a tiny
signal from it connected direct to the computer and
can't see any way of increasing it before recording.
Should I be using some sort of pre-amplification or is
it better to jack up the levels in the recording - I'm
having to increase the signal at least +6dB..??


Why are you concerned about increasing the signal by
just 6 dB?



Interesting. I type 'at least +6dB' you see 'just 6
dB'....

If you said 30 dB, or if you were having problems with
hiss from the mic, then I'd get a little more worried.

6 dB, 10 dB, that's just a small misunderstanding.



OK Arny, try this: when using the USB mic, I frequently
have to boost the signal by 12 dB or so to get a good
showing in the software. As a long-term recordist, due
you think this is deleterious to the sound quality or
would hardware preamplification (if I could find any*) be
a better way to go?

12 dB shouldn't be a problem.

"Don Pearce" wrote in message


The Samson mic has a maximum SPL of 136dB. Assuming the
girls were speaking at 80dB, that leaves 56dB to make up
in software to achieve full scale. More worrying perhaps,
dividing 56 by six, that is 9 of the 16 bits unused. So
it is effectively using a 7-bit ADC. That makes for a
considerable noise floor.


The C03 apparently has a mic preamp gain control that operates via a special
application that comes with the mic.

From the user manual:

"The C03U has an onboard, digitally controlled analog INPUT GAIN stage which
is
controlled by the C03U software fader. The fader control provides a range of
gain
from -62 to +48 dB."

On Sat, 9 Apr 2011 14:22:07 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message


The Samson mic has a maximum SPL of 136dB. Assuming the
girls were speaking at 80dB, that leaves 56dB to make up
in software to achieve full scale. More worrying perhaps,
dividing 56 by six, that is 9 of the 16 bits unused. So
it is effectively using a 7-bit ADC. That makes for a
considerable noise floor.


The C03 apparently has a mic preamp gain control that operates via a special
application that comes with the mic.

From the user manual:

"The C03U has an onboard, digitally controlled analog INPUT GAIN stage which
is
controlled by the C03U software fader. The fader control provides a range of
gain
from -62 to +48 dB."

Didn't see that. Makes a big difference.

d

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message

It is a C03U multi-pattern and I reckon it's rather
good, but the problem with it is I get such a tiny
signal from it connected direct to the computer and
can't see any way of increasing it before recording.
Should I be using some sort of pre-amplification or is
it better to jack up the levels in the recording - I'm
having to increase the signal at least +6dB..??


Why are you concerned about increasing the signal by
just 6 dB?



Interesting. I type 'at least +6dB' you see 'just 6
dB'....

If you said 30 dB, or if you were having problems with
hiss from the mic, then I'd get a little more worried.

6 dB, 10 dB, that's just a small misunderstanding.



OK Arny, try this: when using the USB mic, I frequently
have to boost the signal by 12 dB or so to get a good
showing in the software. As a long-term recordist, due
you think this is deleterious to the sound quality or
would hardware preamplification (if I could find any*) be
a better way to go?

12 dB shouldn't be a problem.


Glad to hear you think so - I haven't heard anything untoward when I have
boosted the signal by that much.

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 9 Apr 2011 11:15:13 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 16:59:20 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:



It is a C03U multi-pattern and I reckon it's rather good, but the
problem
with it is I get such a tiny signal from it connected direct to the
computer
and can't see any way of increasing it before recording. Should I be
using
some sort of pre-amplification or is it better to jack up the levels in
the
recording - I'm having to increase the signal at least +6dB..??



The Samson mic has a maximum SPL of 136dB. Assuming the girls were
speaking at 80dB, that leaves 56dB to make up in software to achieve
full scale. More worrying perhaps, dividing 56 by six, that is 9 of
the 16 bits unused. So it is effectively using a 7-bit ADC. That makes
for a considerable noise floor.


Two things I would query: the girls are not loud and where does FS come
into
it?


FS is the starting point - where you work back from in calculating
this stuff. The Samson spec says that FS is at 136dB. 16 bit noise is
96 dB below that (by definition, can't be any better). That means that
the mic has a hiss level equivalent to 40dB - my study is quieter than
that, so the hiss would be very intrusive.


OK.



I assumed the girls to be at 80dB to be kind really. That would give a
signal to noise ratio of 40dB. In all probability they are nearer
70dB, which would leave you with just a 30dB signal to noise ratio. A
quick measure of the file shows it to be somewhere between the two.



As for the Neumann, it is currently being ruined by that preamp. Spend
30 quid on a small Behringer mixer with its exemplary preamps and find
out what it is truly capable of.


I would gladly do that and post comparisons, what model do you have in
mind?
Amazon is a preferred source and I would like USB connectivity to connect
to
a computer that has no other 'audio in' apart from the usual front panel
'pink' microphone minijack socket.


Maybe a little pricey, but the 1204USB mixer comes in at about £160.
You can get a XENYX 802 for £40-50, but you need to feed it into a
sound card.


Both those are a tad *overkill* for a single mic but not to worry - for some
reason unknown to me I seem to be getting a stronger signal than I was.
Certainly strong enough to do something with in my recording software.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Don Pearce" wrote in message


The Samson mic has a maximum SPL of 136dB. Assuming the
girls were speaking at 80dB, that leaves 56dB to make up
in software to achieve full scale. More worrying perhaps,
dividing 56 by six, that is 9 of the 16 bits unused. So
it is effectively using a 7-bit ADC. That makes for a
considerable noise floor.


The C03 apparently has a mic preamp gain control that operates via a
special application that comes with the mic.

From the user manual:

"The C03U has an onboard, digitally controlled analog INPUT GAIN stage
which is
controlled by the C03U software fader. The fader control provides a range
of gain
from -62 to +48 dB."


Hmmm, that *almost* rings a bell!

But if the gain is controlled in software I don't have or want, then I can
adjust levels in my recording software.

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , Keith G
scribeth thus

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 15:58:00 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:

On Thu, 7 Apr 2011 15:45:43 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


OK, Tony, here's my next door neighbour and very good friend Maurice:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...e%20fisher.jpg


Talking 'not posh' (he says he doesn't do 'posh'! :-) thus:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/Maurice-A.wav

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/Maurice-B.wav


(A and B naming convention is consistent with the previous recordings.)



Not going to chooses "better" for the simple reason that I've never
heard Maurice speak, but I'm going to say that mic A is not handling
this as well as B.

d

Are you by any chance using that odd valve pre-amp on the Neumann?


Yes, but what's odd about it? Anyway, can't wait for Tony, so:

Maurice-A is the Neumann and the tubey pre; Maurice-B is the Samson. On my
setup the Samson sounds slightly tinny by comparison but the 'sax player'
has picked it as best a few times now which is why I posted the
comparison.

Here's Maurice's granddaughters - bilingual at the age of six, due to
having
a Spanish mother:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/Girls01.wav


So, which mic was that on then?

Answers on a postcard....



Not on the best replay system here at the moment but..

I think A sounds a bit more relaxed and easier on the ear but thats not
a tremendous amount apart with them apart from level difference and
slightly lower noise on A. Seems a bit overall more noisy than it might
be?.

Be interesting to compare them level matched in somewhere like a radio
studio...


Thanks for your input Tony. I like what you say about Mic A which is the
Neumann and which is the one I have decided to settle on and get properly
sorted out.