| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
Mic comparison
Nothing much doing so I've posted the quick microphone comparison I mentioned recently. These are are a simultaneous sax recording with two different mics, one costing about 10X the price of the other: http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/MicA.wav http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/MicB.wav Anybody pick a clear winner? (Playing and/or recording quality here is nor the issue - both mics suffered the same treatment and no editing has been done to the recordings other than an attempt to match the levels somewhat.) |
Mic comparison
"Keith G" wrote in message ... Nothing much doing so I've posted the quick microphone comparison I mentioned recently. These are are a simultaneous sax recording with two different mics, one costing about 10X the price of the other: http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/MicA.wav http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/MicB.wav Anybody pick a clear winner? (Playing and/or recording quality here is nor the issue - both mics suffered the same treatment and no editing has been done to the recordings other than an attempt to match the levels somewhat.) C'mon boys and girls - no response is not an option! Here are the two mics in question (still in place): http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/TwoMics.jpg Like I say: The Neumann (with the requisite pre) is about 10X the price of the Samson USB mic and I don't think there's a lot in it! (But that's just me and my 'cloth' ears! ;-) |
Mic comparison
In article , Keith G
scribeth thus "Keith G" wrote in message ... Nothing much doing so I've posted the quick microphone comparison I mentioned recently. These are are a simultaneous sax recording with two different mics, one costing about 10X the price of the other: http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/MicA.wav http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/MicB.wav Anybody pick a clear winner? (Playing and/or recording quality here is nor the issue - both mics suffered the same treatment and no editing has been done to the recordings other than an attempt to match the levels somewhat.) C'mon boys and girls - no response is not an option! Here are the two mics in question (still in place): http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/TwoMics.jpg Like I say: The Neumann (with the requisite pre) is about 10X the price of the Samson USB mic and I don't think there's a lot in it! (But that's just me and my 'cloth' ears! ;-) Could we just have a bit of male speech instead please?.. With some pauses in it ... -- Tony Sayer |
Mic comparison
In article ,
Keith G wrote: Like I say: The Neumann (with the requisite pre) is about 10X the price of the Samson USB mic and I don't think there's a lot in it! There's a lot more to a mic than simply producing a reasonable sounding recording under the sort of circumstances you're likely to use it. -- *Do infants enjoy infancy as much as adults enjoy adultery? Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Mic comparison
"tony sayer" wrote in message ... In article , Keith G scribeth thus "Keith G" wrote in message ... Nothing much doing so I've posted the quick microphone comparison I mentioned recently. These are are a simultaneous sax recording with two different mics, one costing about 10X the price of the other: http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/MicA.wav http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/MicB.wav Anybody pick a clear winner? (Playing and/or recording quality here is nor the issue - both mics suffered the same treatment and no editing has been done to the recordings other than an attempt to match the levels somewhat.) C'mon boys and girls - no response is not an option! Here are the two mics in question (still in place): http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/TwoMics.jpg Like I say: The Neumann (with the requisite pre) is about 10X the price of the Samson USB mic and I don't think there's a lot in it! (But that's just me and my 'cloth' ears! ;-) Could we just have a bit of male speech instead please?.. With some pauses in it ... No, not unless I can find a *volunteer* tomorrow! :-) Besides which, it's the sax I need to record, not speech. |
Mic comparison
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article , Keith G wrote: Like I say: The Neumann (with the requisite pre) is about 10X the price of the Samson USB mic and I don't think there's a lot in it! There's a lot more to a mic than simply producing a reasonable sounding recording under the sort of circumstances you're likely to use it. Such as? Durability and resistance to shock, I suppose - if so, I can't see how the Samson would be less tough than the Neumann. It's like a cosh! |
Mic comparison
"Keith G" wrote in message ... Nothing much doing so I've posted the quick microphone comparison I mentioned recently. These are are a simultaneous sax recording with two different mics, one costing about 10X the price of the other: http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/MicA.wav http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/MicB.wav Anybody pick a clear winner? Morning Keith, I am away at the moment, and so can only listen in a rather rudimentary fashion. You have presented two complete segments (instead of switching between them say every four bars) which makes comparison more difficult. I get the impression (on headphones) that Mic.A has less high frequency content? Being able to switch an AB of the two directly would confirm or disprove this. Have you compressed/peak limited the signal? I am wondering about, for example, the attack of the first G (E natural on Eb alto saxophone) and hear the same effect on both versions, so this is probably not a characterisic of either microphone. For any kind of comparison purposes of the solo mic, the leakage of the backing track is somewhat distracting. (Playing and/or recording quality here is nor the issue - both mics suffered the same treatment and no editing has been done to the recordings other than an attempt to match the levels somewhat.) Mic comparison is not, as I see it, about which sounds "better" or "worse", "winners" or "losers" but which you consider to be the more appropriate to capture the sound which you, have in mind for that particular task. No two mics sound the same. In fact there may be differences between mics of the same type from the same maker. Charles Gerhardt, at RCA, had picked out and written down the serial numbers of two Neumann KM 83s which he said he preferred for solo acoustic instruments, to any of the others. Placement is almost as important as the choice of microphone. The saxophone is quite a difficult instrument in that respect. One mic think, from watching TV, that clipping a Sennheiser 608 on a gooseneck to look down into bell is a good way to go about it Don'tchakidyerself! It's an interesting topic. Let's discuss it:-) Hopefully this thread will take off. UKRA seems to have been very quiet:-) Breakfast is served..... In haste Iain |
Mic comparison
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
... No two mics sound the same. In fact there may be differences between mics of the same type from the same maker. Charles Gerhardt, at RCA, had picked out and written down the serial numbers of two Neumann KM 83s which he said he preferred for solo acoustic instruments, to any of the others. Placement is almost as important as the choice of microphone. The saxophone is quite a difficult instrument in that respect. I'd have thought that placement was actually rather *more* important, along with the acoustic environment. And if we are getting so anal as to start trying to identify individual "preferred" mics from a type, how about temperature? It'll affect the sound carrying properties of the air as well as the degree of expansion and electrical resistance of the metal in the microphone. David. |
Mic comparison
In article ,
Keith G wrote: There's a lot more to a mic than simply producing a reasonable sounding recording under the sort of circumstances you're likely to use it. Such as? Durability and resistance to shock, I suppose You suppose wrong. - if so, I can't see how the Samson would be less tough than the Neumann. It's like a cosh! -- *Be more or less specific * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Mic comparison
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote: One mic think, from watching TV, that clipping a Sennheiser 608 on a gooseneck to look down into bell is a good way to go about it Don'tchakidyerself! Seem to remember you asking for help on how to mike up a roving sax on stage... It may have escaped your notice, but TV isn't a recording studio. Any more than a live gig is. So what works for one won't necessarily work for the other. I'm amazed one with all your claimed experience doesn't already know this. -- *I get enough exercise just pushing my luck. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Mic comparison
In article ,
David Looser wrote: I'd have thought that placement was actually rather *more* important, along with the acoustic environment. And if we are getting so anal as to start trying to identify individual "preferred" mics from a type, how about temperature? It'll affect the sound carrying properties of the air as well as the degree of expansion and electrical resistance of the metal in the microphone. Phew. ;-) -- *Forget the Joneses, I keep us up with the Simpsons. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Mic comparison
"David Looser" wrote in
message "Iain Churches" wrote in message ... No two mics sound the same. In fact there may be differences between mics of the same type from the same maker. Charles Gerhardt, at RCA, had picked out and written down the serial numbers of two Neumann KM 83s which he said he preferred for solo acoustic instruments, to any of the others. That seems like a whopping generality. It is well known that the preferred type of microphone varies with instrument and application. So, picking out a pair from a population of a certain specific microphone for micing *all* solo acoustic instruments seems like a reach. They are both string instruments, but what could be more different than a piano and a guitar? Placement is almost as important as the choice of microphone. The saxophone is quite a difficult instrument in that respect. Sorta. I'd have thought that placement was actually rather *more* important, along with the acoustic environment. And if we are getting so anal as to start trying to identify individual "preferred" mics from a type, how about temperature? It'll affect the sound carrying properties of the air as well as the degree of expansion and electrical resistance of the metal in the microphone. I don't see a clear hierarchy between mic choice and mic placement that is true in every case. Frankly, you need to get both right. The usual sequence of events is IME to choose a mic and try to place it, and revisit your choice if you can't find "The right place" to put it. |
Mic comparison
In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote: No two mics sound the same. In fact there may be differences between mics of the same type from the same maker. Charles Gerhardt, at RCA, had picked out and written down the serial numbers of two Neumann KM 83s which he said he preferred for solo acoustic instruments, to any of the others. That seems like a whopping generality. It is well known that the preferred type of microphone varies with instrument and application. So, picking out a pair from a population of a certain specific microphone for micing *all* solo acoustic instruments seems like a reach. They are both string instruments, but what could be more different than a piano and a guitar? Indeed. He might well have had his other mics of the same make serviced too - it's surprising how much crap collects on the diaphragm. However, 'names' are no less likely to bull**** than others. Maybe even more likely since they will be listened to. The only audio device well known for varying between samples for no good reason was the EMT reverb plate. When you had a good one, you let no-one near it. ;-) -- *I'm really easy to get along with once people learn to worship me Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Mic comparison
"tony sayer" wrote in message ... In article , Keith G scribeth thus "Keith G" wrote in message ... Nothing much doing so I've posted the quick microphone comparison I mentioned recently. These are are a simultaneous sax recording with two different mics, one costing about 10X the price of the other: http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/MicA.wav http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/MicB.wav Anybody pick a clear winner? (Playing and/or recording quality here is nor the issue - both mics suffered the same treatment and no editing has been done to the recordings other than an attempt to match the levels somewhat.) C'mon boys and girls - no response is not an option! Here are the two mics in question (still in place): http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/TwoMics.jpg Like I say: The Neumann (with the requisite pre) is about 10X the price of the Samson USB mic and I don't think there's a lot in it! (But that's just me and my 'cloth' ears! ;-) Could we just have a bit of male speech instead please?.. With some pauses in it ... 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.) |
Mic comparison
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 |
Mic comparison
"Don Pearce" wrote in message
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. One of my hot buttons - people who comment on how *natural* something sounds, but they've never ever actually heard exactly it live. The more relevent word is probably "believable" but its really all ******** unless it sounds truely weird. |
Mic comparison
On 06/04/2011 23:41, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In , Keith wrote: Like I say: The Neumann (with the requisite pre) is about 10X the price of the Samson USB mic and I don't think there's a lot in it! There's a lot moreslap Than you know for sure. |
Mic comparison
"Don Pearce" wrote in message ... 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, Like most people when a mic is thrust in front of them, take it from me that's Maurice not sounding a lot like the Maurice I know!! but I'm going to say that mic A is not handling this as well as B. OK, thanks for that. I'll not reveal the mics at this stage. |
Mic comparison
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Don Pearce" wrote in message 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. One of my hot buttons - people who comment on how *natural* something sounds, but they've never ever actually heard exactly it live. Yes, its like the 'being there' BS we used to get in here a few years back! The more relevent word is probably "believable" but its really all ******** unless it sounds truely weird. Which more or less confirms that 'fi' has been fairly 'hi' since Elvis Presley 78s..!! ;-) |
Mic comparison
"Iain Churches" wrote in message ... "Keith G" wrote in message ... Nothing much doing so I've posted the quick microphone comparison I mentioned recently. These are are a simultaneous sax recording with two different mics, one costing about 10X the price of the other: http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/MicA.wav http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/MicB.wav Anybody pick a clear winner? Morning Keith, Evening Iain! I am away at the moment, and so can only listen in a rather rudimentary fashion. You have presented two complete segments (instead of switching between them say every four bars) which makes comparison more difficult. I get the impression (on headphones) that Mic.A has less high frequency content? Being able to switch an AB of the two directly would confirm or disprove this. Not easy to do. What I seek, if possible is someone to stab a finger and say 'that one'!! :-) Have you compressed/peak limited the signal? No - like I said, no editing other than volume adjustments. I am wondering about, for example, the attack of the first G (E natural on Eb alto saxophone) and hear the same effect on both versions, so this is probably not a characterisic of either microphone. For any kind of comparison purposes of the solo mic, the leakage of the backing track is somewhat distracting. Sorry about that. (Playing and/or recording quality here is nor the issue - both mics suffered the same treatment and no editing has been done to the recordings other than an attempt to match the levels somewhat.) Mic comparison is not, as I see it, about which sounds "better" or "worse", "winners" or "losers" but which you consider to be the more appropriate to capture the sound which you, have in mind for that particular task. Yep. IOW which one 'wins' in the contest for the job to hand! Placement is almost as important as the choice of microphone. The saxophone is quite a difficult instrument in that respect. You know me.... ;-) One mic think, from watching TV, that clipping a Sennheiser 608 on a gooseneck to look down into bell is a good way to go about it Don'tchakidyerself! No good to me: one thing I want my sax player to do soon is to start waving the starts and ends of phrases away from the mic! It's an interesting topic. Let's discuss it:-) Hopefully this thread will take off. UKRA seems to have been very quiet:-) Yes, well aware that I start 90% of all the threads in here! ('Emptiest vessels' and all that! ;-) Breakfast is served..... I hope it was a good one - I only had Quaker Oats So Simple!! :-) |
Mic comparison
In article ,
Don Pearce wrote: 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? Perhaps it doesn't like DC up it. ;-) -- *Someday, we'll look back on this, laugh nervously and change the subject Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Mic comparison
"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.... |
Mic comparison
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? 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... -- *If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving definitely isn't for you * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Mic comparison
On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 11:51:45 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote: "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.... The pre-amp has problems, possibly related to that DC. The girls are on the Sampson. d |
Mic comparison
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
message 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? I think Keith's Samson is a USB mic, probably a C01U but I'm not sure of that as there are now a number of other USB models. Intersestingly enough I actually have quite a bit of experience with C01, and they are really quite good, especially for the low price. I use a more-or-less coincident pair of them to mic the center of our church's choir. Not the USB models though, the phantom-powered versions. |
Mic comparison
"Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 11:51:45 +0100, "Keith G" wrote: "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.... The pre-amp has problems, possibly related to that DC. Yet the manufacturers say it shouldn't affect the signal or the pre?? Anyhow, it must be me but I prefer the Neumann/tubey pre result but then that's probably because I know what it is and what it cost! It does seem I'm in the minority here, though. The girls are on the Sampson. Correct, they are. |
Mic comparison
"Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 11:51:45 +0100, "Keith G" wrote: "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.... The pre-amp has problems, possibly related to that DC. Yet the manufacturers say it shouldn't affect the signal or the pre?? Anyhow, it must be me but I prefer the Neumann/tubey pre result but then that's probably because I know what it is and what it cost! It does seem I'm in the minority here, though. The girls are on the Sampson. Correct, they are. |
Mic comparison
"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..?? Sorry, that's a little vague! What I mean is I have to pump up the *recorded* signal in the recording software (Sound Forge) *after* the recording has been made. That any better? |
Mic comparison
In article ,
Keith G wrote: I don't know what a 'Samson' is. Another pre-amp? Must be blind or (more likely) hasn't read the posts - in the *second* post I said: "Like I say: The Neumann (with the requisite pre) is about 10X the price of the Samson USB mic and I don't think there's a lot in it!" Your signal to noise ratio is so poor it's not surprising important stuff gets missed. However, the principle still applies. To compare two of anything meaningfully, everything else must be the same. -- *Does fuzzy logic tickle? * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Mic comparison
"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? |
Mic comparison
"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'.... ?? |
Mic comparison
"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. |
Mic comparison
"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? *Plenty of 'Blue Icicle' type XLR/USB and 'MicPort' *converters*: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0r2Du_1r8VE .....but no USB/USB preamplifiers, from what I can see. |
Mic comparison
"Keith G" wrote
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? *Plenty of 'Blue Icicle' type XLR/USB and 'MicPort' *converters*: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0r2Du_1r8VE ....but no USB/USB preamplifiers, from what I can see. Well you won't get any. By the time the signal gets to the USB connector it's already in digital form, so the opportunity for pre-amplification has already been and gone. You'd need to increase the analogue gain *inside* the microphone. David. |
Mic comparison
On 08/04/2011 20:51, Arny Krueger wrote:
Some **** that doesn't matter as he's gonna vaporize in a few hours. |
Mic comparison
"David Looser" wrote in message ... "Keith G" wrote 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? *Plenty of 'Blue Icicle' type XLR/USB and 'MicPort' *converters*: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0r2Du_1r8VE ....but no USB/USB preamplifiers, from what I can see. Well you won't get any. By the time the signal gets to the USB connector it's already in digital form, Yes, of course it is - the cable is an A-B USB connector. so the opportunity for pre-amplification has already been and gone. OK. You'd need to increase the analogue gain *inside* the microphone. Well, the mic in question has switchable high-pass filter and -10 dB pad but no other adjustment, so I gather the rather weedy signal delivered to the computer is all there is to go with! I suppose one benefit is that it's going to make 'clipping' an impossibility to do! |
Mic comparison
In article ,
Keith G wrote: 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? What do you mean by a 'good showing' in the software? Do you mean peaking to approaching 0dBFS? With pro digital systems, it is the norm to peak to no more than -10 dBFS. And those are peaks, not mean values. -- *It's not hard to meet expenses... they're everywhere. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Mic comparison
"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? 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. |
Mic comparison
In article ,
Keith G wrote: 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. My view is producing a decent line in to digital converter using USB volts isn't an easy task. In rather the same way as making a good sound card. It can be done, but most didn't bother. -- *You never really learn to swear until you learn to drive * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:40 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright ©2004-2006 AudioBanter.co.uk