Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Which equipment for classical recording?

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
September 11, 2005 7:15:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I'd welcome your suggestions for equipment for recording classical
music, usually played by a small group of musicians, but occasionally
with a large group, or a large organ. I have a friend who makes
extremely good recordings using spaced omni mics, with the following
equipment:

Microphones: DPA 4006 omnis, usually with nose cones attached
Preamp: Buzz Audio MA-2.2
A-to-D Converter: RME Fireface 800
Recording: Sequoia software running on a PC
Monitor Speakers: Dynaudio BM6A

I want to spend less money than this equipment would cost, so I would
appreciate suggestions about which area to economise on.

For example, there are some omni mics on the market at a fraction of
the price of the DPA's, but do they produce a realistic sound and a
good stereo image?
Does any other omni mic have nose cones that turn it into a true omni?

Perhaps you could make equipment suggestions in two categories.

Firstly, if the budget was very limited, what is the lowest costing
equipment that you feel would do justice to classical music?

Secondly if the budget was perhaps half to two thirds of the price of
the equipment listed above, what would be the best choice of equipment
for recording classical music at that price?

One final detail, if I do buy DPA 4006 mics, which is more suitable,
the version with a transformer or the purely solid state version?

Thanks for any help,
Paul.
Anonymous
September 11, 2005 11:38:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Paul Jones wrote:
> I have a friend who makes
> extremely good recordings using spaced omni mics, with the following
> equipment:
>
> Microphones: DPA 4006 omnis, usually with nose cones attached
> Preamp: Buzz Audio MA-2.2
> A-to-D Converter: RME Fireface 800
> Recording: Sequoia software running on a PC
> Monitor Speakers: Dynaudio BM6A
>
> I want to spend less money than this equipment would cost, so I would
> appreciate suggestions about which area to economise on.

Before you spend any money, go out on recording jobs with your friend.
After a couple of years, you'll have some idea of what he does to make
his recordings good. Do that, using whatever equipment you can afford.

You can't buy your way into making good recordings. You need some
know-how and you have to make some bad ones, first.
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 2:33:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Paul Jones <paul_a_n_jones@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Microphones: DPA 4006 omnis, usually with nose cones attached
>Preamp: Buzz Audio MA-2.2
>A-to-D Converter: RME Fireface 800
>Recording: Sequoia software running on a PC
>Monitor Speakers: Dynaudio BM6A
>
>I want to spend less money than this equipment would cost, so I would
>appreciate suggestions about which area to economise on.
>
>For example, there are some omni mics on the market at a fraction of
>the price of the DPA's, but do they produce a realistic sound and a
>good stereo image?

The DPAS, the Schoeps, the Josephson Series Six, and the Sennheiser MKH-20
are all different but in a similar league.

I would much rather go the Jecklin disc route than widely spaced omnis,
but that's me. I have a thing about imaging.

>Does any other omni mic have nose cones that turn it into a true omni?

Any mike can. The DPA cones will fit on most mikes. To be honest, though,
you may find you don't want them to be truly omni.

>Perhaps you could make equipment suggestions in two categories.

I would suggest if you have never done this before that you get a pair
of cardioids and learn to place ORTF. Once you have got the hang of
that, then start trying omnis.

>Firstly, if the budget was very limited, what is the lowest costing
>equipment that you feel would do justice to classical music?

I would pick a pair of the Josephson Series Four mikes, a Great River
or a John Hardy preamp, and the Benchmark converters, going into
whatever recorder I liked.

>Secondly if the budget was perhaps half to two thirds of the price of
>the equipment listed above, what would be the best choice of equipment
>for recording classical music at that price?

Hell, I don't even know if you mostly are doing orchestral work or
chamber work. I have no idea what kind of halls you're working in.
How can you expect me to make serious recommendations? All I can
do is pick the most general-purpose stuff I can.

>One final detail, if I do buy DPA 4006 mics, which is more suitable,
>the version with a transformer or the purely solid state version?

The one you like the sound of. I prefer the transformerless ones myself,
but that's just me. By all means you should audition them under several
different kinds of concert.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Related resources
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 2:33:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Once you're outside the idea of using JUNK mics (and I think you;re happily
there) then the MOST important feature is
POSITION

Average mics can make MARVELOUS recordings when properly placed in the right
space.
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 11:29:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Check The Peluso CEMC6 small diaphram condensers with the OMNI
capsules. For the money (ca. $550 for a pair), they are amazing. I´ve
used mine for some live concert (classical) recordings and I have been
very pleased.

Also, Make sure you have a good preamp.

Good Luck,
Peace
Marco
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 6:49:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Your friend has some great kit - and I think you've had some good
advice - go on as many jobs with him as you can. I was talking to a
friend about technique in classical recordings - 25 years ago we had
moved on from crossed figure of eights to coincident cardioids - then
ORTF spaced cardioids and now mostly spaced omnis. I asked him why and
his point was the ability to get closer with the omnis and still retain
ambience. But very often people put out more than one
pair/configuration and mix and match. I remember the first time I
balanced an orchestra (as the tape op) and my supervisor faded out my
pair of hypercardioids and said - "not a bad balance on your spot
mics". Get as much experience as you can before you part with cash.
Sequoia is brill and it's source/destination editing model is much
loved by some classical editors (www.themagicofradio.com for my review)
but it is expensive and I know people cutting classical music with
Cooledit.
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 6:52:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Paul Jones" <paul_a_n_jones@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1126476928.385371.8510@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I'd welcome your suggestions for equipment for recording classical
> music, usually played by a small group of musicians, but occasionally
> with a large group, or a large organ. I have a friend who makes
> extremely good recordings using spaced omni mics, with the following
> equipment:
>
> Microphones: DPA 4006 omnis, usually with nose cones attached
> Preamp: Buzz Audio MA-2.2
> A-to-D Converter: RME Fireface 800
> Recording: Sequoia software running on a PC
> Monitor Speakers: Dynaudio BM6A
>
> I want to spend less money than this equipment would cost, so I would
> appreciate suggestions about which area to economise on.
>
> For example, there are some omni mics on the market at a fraction of
> the price of the DPA's, but do they produce a realistic sound and a
> good stereo image?
> Does any other omni mic have nose cones that turn it into a true omni?
>
> Perhaps you could make equipment suggestions in two categories.
>
> Firstly, if the budget was very limited, what is the lowest costing
> equipment that you feel would do justice to classical music?
>
> Secondly if the budget was perhaps half to two thirds of the price of
> the equipment listed above, what would be the best choice of equipment
> for recording classical music at that price?
>
> One final detail, if I do buy DPA 4006 mics, which is more suitable,
> the version with a transformer or the purely solid state version?
>
> Thanks for any help,
> Paul.
>
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 6:59:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Paul Jones" <paul_a_n_jones@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1126476928.385371.8510@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I'd welcome your suggestions for equipment for recording classical
> music, usually played by a small group of musicians, but occasionally
> with a large group, or a large organ. I have a friend who makes
> extremely good recordings using spaced omni mics, with the following
> equipment:
>
> Microphones: DPA 4006 omnis, usually with nose cones attached
> Preamp: Buzz Audio MA-2.2
> A-to-D Converter: RME Fireface 800
> Recording: Sequoia software running on a PC
> Monitor Speakers: Dynaudio BM6A
>
> I want to spend less money than this equipment would cost, so I would
> appreciate suggestions about which area to economise on.
>
> For example, there are some omni mics on the market at a fraction of
> the price of the DPA's, but do they produce a realistic sound and a
> good stereo image?
> Does any other omni mic have nose cones that turn it into a true omni?
>
> Perhaps you could make equipment suggestions in two categories.
>
> Firstly, if the budget was very limited, what is the lowest costing
> equipment that you feel would do justice to classical music?
>
> Secondly if the budget was perhaps half to two thirds of the price of
> the equipment listed above, what would be the best choice of equipment
> for recording classical music at that price?
>
> One final detail, if I do buy DPA 4006 mics, which is more suitable,
> the version with a transformer or the purely solid state version?

My advice would be to buy a 4 mike mixer from Behringer and a couple of
those cheap Behringer omni condenser mikes. Condenser mikes have enough
output that you don't need to invest in super quiet preamps. That's more or
less what I did, only I used a Mackie 1202 and 3 Radio Shack PZM's. They do
a wonderful job on pipe organs.

Norm Strong
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 7:53:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Paul Jones wrote:
> For example, there are some omni mics on the market at a fraction of
> the price of the DPA's, but do they produce a realistic sound and a
> good stereo image?

For realistic sound at an affordable price, try the Avenson STO-2
omnis. $495 matched pair. Not as quiet as some of the DPA/MKH
obviously, but a very nice tone, especially on acoustic strings.

Mic preamps and converters are of course important for the level of
detail you want. Maybe consider used?

For less expense on the monitors, I went with passive and my own amp.

Steve
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 8:06:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Paul Jones wrote:
> I'd welcome your suggestions for equipment for recording classical
> music, usually played by a small group of musicians, but occasionally
> with a large group, or a large organ. I have a friend who makes
> extremely good recordings using spaced omni mics, with the following
> equipment:
>
> Microphones: DPA 4006 omnis, usually with nose cones attached

Omnidirection mics won't work everywhere. You'll likely want a nice
pair of cardioid or hypercardioid mics as well. The Schoeps modular
series is a classical standard and you could buy both omni and cardioid
or hypercardioid capsules for one pair of bodies. This will be
expensive, though. The interchangeable capsule Neumann KM-100 series
has some fans. The non-interchangeable KM-180 series is cheaper, and
KM-184's are easy to find used, but I don't really like them on strings
at all. Some folks here like the AT4051 series, which you can also buy
additional capsules for. The AKG C480 has interchangeable capsules,
too. (Avoid the earlier C460 bodies.) I'm a big Josephson fan, but most
of his Series 6 line is out of production pending retooling. You might
also look at MBHO.

With DPA omni's, whether you want nose cones depends on the acoustics
of the particular venue. In some places, you might want the opposite
effect, which is achieved with a ball attachement. Before spending
money on nose cones or balls, I would first buy a Schneider or Jecklin
disk. (The Jecklin is pretty easy to make yourself.) DPA also makes
cardioids and wide cardioids. When searching ebay, remember that these
mics were originally sold under the Bruel&Kjaer label.

> Preamp: Buzz Audio MA-2.2

I see a used 4-channel Millennia for sale on ebay right now. That would
be perfect. There's also a two-channel Grace Designs on ebay, and Great
River preamps show up from time to time. (You want the non-NV ones for
this application.)

> A-to-D Converter: RME Fireface 800

(This is probably the least impressive part of your friend's rig.) The
average converter box seems to be getting worse and worse instead of
better and better, as features and price point become more important
than how stuff sounds. Anything that includes mic preamps is probably
something you don't want (stuff from Apogee and Grace excepted).

On a PC, a Lynx II card is not a bad thing.

If you stick to 44.1ksps recording, there are good rackmount converters
available at pennies on the dollar. For instance, I have an older
four-channel Benchmark A/D/A for sale right now (price _very_
negotiable). Follow this link:

http://www.recording.org/ftopict-31802.html

> Recording: Sequoia software running on a PC

Samplitude has the same audio engine as Sequoia, and it is much
cheaper. You'd probably be very happy with Samplitude Classic. If you
only record in stereo, Samplitude Master would work.

http://www.samplitude.com

Or you could forgo the computer hassles and go with a used Tascam DTRS
machine and a Prism bit splitter(MR2024-T). With a DA-78 or DA-98 you
can use a Tascam IF-AE8 interface instead of the Prism, but with with a
DA-38 or DA-88 you need the bit-splitting function of the Prism box or
you'll be limited to 16-bit recording.

http://www.tangible-technology.com/DTRS_INDEX.html

http://www.dmtrentals.com/gear4sale.htm

> Monitor Speakers: Dynaudio BM6A

This is such a personal choice, I can't really make a recommendation.

David L. Rick
Seventh String Recording

NOTE: THE "REPLY_TO" ADDRESS IN THE HEADER IS A BOT DECOY. Real humans
are advised to reply to davidlrickATyahooDOTcom
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 10:25:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Seriously check out the Josephson C42MP:

http://www.cascademedia.net/products.asp?catid=118&prod...

In our opinion, the best bang for your $$ for stereo recording.
Recording magazine deemed them the "poor man's Schoeps" in their
cardiod shootout last year.

We've used them on many a classical gig and had great results. If
you need more info email me privately and I will be happy to answer any
questions for you.

Frank

Cascade Media, LLC
For All Your Digital Recording Needs
Portland, Oregon USA
(888)336-4643
(503)353-6860
(503)353 6864 -fax
frank@cascademedia.net
www.cascademedia.net
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 11:35:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Paul Jones wrote:

> I'd welcome your suggestions for equipment for recording
> classical music, usually played by a small group of musicians,
> but occasionally with a large group, or a large organ.

Small membrane condensers, one pair required.

> I have a friend who makes extremely good recordings using
> spaced omni mics, with the following equipment:

> Microphones: DPA 4006 omnis, usually with nose cones attached

Tell him to go check dpa's website, I think he can get them upgraded to
transformerless at a modest cost, whatever that is.

> Preamp: Buzz Audio MA-2.2

Unknown. Symetrix 302 is reportedly where quality begins, Midiman also
have some products that look very interesting.

> A-to-D Converter: RME Fireface 800

Unknown.

> Recording: Sequoia software running on a PC

Unknown.

> Monitor Speakers: Dynaudio BM6A

> I want to spend less money than this equipment would cost,
> so I would appreciate suggestions about which area to
> economise on.

AKG CK451, one pair, Fostex FR2, Manfrotto stand.

> For example, there are some omni mics on the market
> at a fraction of the price of the DPA's, but do they
> produce a realistic sound and a good stereo image?

DPA is one of the very few manufacturers to produce mics that live up to
amplifier specs rather than to transducerspecs.

> Does any other omni mic have nose cones that turn it into
> a true omni?

AKG's CK22 capsule come close - almost the same concept for a different
reason, namely close miking speech. The do have a peculiar response
aberration around 10 kHz that makes violins and brass somewhat massive.

> Perhaps you could make equipment suggestions in two categories.

First learn to record and to listen. You have learnt to listen by a
musical definition when you can hear the conversation between Brahms and
the Schumanns in Brahms chamber music. For some technical listening
practice, go visit Arny Krügers ABX website. See also my recent comments
on amplifier soundstaging in rec.audio.tech.

> Firstly, if the budget was very limited, what is the lowest
> costing equipment that you feel would do justice to classical
> music?

Suggested setup. First upgrade to it: an external high quality mic pre.

> Secondly if the budget was perhaps half to two thirds of
> the price of the equipment listed above, what would be
> the best choice of equipment for recording classical
> music at that price?

Substitute a pair of small membrane Neumann Cardioids.

> One final detail, if I do buy DPA 4006 mics, which is more suitable,
> the version with a transformer or the purely solid state version?

You get better synergy by not having the exact same equipment as your
friend, the DPA or Schoeps sub-cardioids may be a better choice by
supplementing what your friend has. Not all rooms are suitable for
recording with omni's, the traditional do-alls are cardioids and
recently also sub-cardioids.

> Thanks for any help,

There may still be some RAP CD-sets available, you will want to listen
to the recording examples on them while reading the extensive
documenation that is available.

> Paul


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************
Anonymous
September 13, 2005 4:17:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I'll toss in another mic:
The single-piece CROWN SASS stereo mic
This looks like a cross between a kleenex box and a Stealth Fighter and
combines a fascinating combination of ideas (Binaural/ORTF/Jecklin) in a
single unit.
Anonymous
September 13, 2005 6:48:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<normanstrong@comcast.net> wrote in
news:CsydnfcXQ__NZ7jeRVn-iA@comcast.com:

> My advice would be to buy a 4 mike mixer from Behringer and a couple
> of those cheap Behringer omni condenser mikes. Condenser mikes have
> enough output that you don't need to invest in super quiet preamps.
> That's more or less what I did, only I used a Mackie 1202 and 3 Radio
> Shack PZM's. They do a wonderful job on pipe organs.

There are some readers who won't realize that this is intended to be funny.
Anonymous
September 13, 2005 12:16:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Carey Carlan" <gulfjoe@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96CFE7F619AEDgulfjoehotmailcom@140.99.99.130...
> <normanstrong@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:CsydnfcXQ__NZ7jeRVn-iA@comcast.com:
>
> > My advice would be to buy a 4 mike mixer from Behringer and a couple
> > of those cheap Behringer omni condenser mikes. Condenser mikes have
> > enough output that you don't need to invest in super quiet preamps.
> > That's more or less what I did, only I used a Mackie 1202 and 3 Radio
> > Shack PZM's. They do a wonderful job on pipe organs.
>
> There are some readers who won't realize that this is intended to be
funny.

Dunno about the pipe organs, but for the rest it would probably work fine.
It will produce recordings that the performers will be delighted to have,
allowing them to produce CDs that make excellent and much-appreciated gifts
for their relatives.

Generally, musicians don't seem interested in hi-fi. I suspect they think
that anyone who can't tell the difference betwen a live performance and a
recording must have something wrong with their hearing, but they are too
polite to say so ... In any event, most musicians have other things to do
with their money than spend it on ever-more-expensive music systems.

Tim
Anonymous
September 13, 2005 1:20:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Carey Carlan" <gulfjoe@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96CFE7F619AEDgulfjoehotmailcom@140.99.99.130...
> <normanstrong@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:CsydnfcXQ__NZ7jeRVn-iA@comcast.com:
>
>> My advice would be to buy a 4 mike mixer from Behringer and a couple
>> of those cheap Behringer omni condenser mikes. Condenser mikes have
>> enough output that you don't need to invest in super quiet preamps.
>> That's more or less what I did, only I used a Mackie 1202 and 3 Radio
>> Shack PZM's. They do a wonderful job on pipe organs.
>
> There are some readers who won't realize that this is intended to be
> funny.

It isn't intended to be funny (and you know it!) It is my advice on how to
start in making recordings. If the OP wants to upgrade at some later date,
he can do so with almost no loss. I don't think it's a good idea to learn
using expensive equipment that might turn out to be the wrong choice.

Norm Strong
Anonymous
September 13, 2005 11:35:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Paul Jones <paul_a_n_jones@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

>Microphones: DPA 4006 omnis, usually with nose cones attached

We're DPA dealers so perhaps I'm biased, but I'm also an experienced recording
engineer.

You might consider a pair of DPA 4060s, a Jecklin or Schneider Disk, one
of our Mic2496 dual mic pre/A-to-D and a laptop PC or PDA that can
accept S/PDIF.

Two of the little 4060s cost less than a single 4006, and they give up
very little to the 4006s in terms of sound quality. The 4060's self
noise spec is a bit higher, but that doesn't matter in a live recording
situation.

Our Mic2496 is an unusually good sounding mic pre and A-to-D with a
noise floor down at -135, and it costs under $600.

For recording software, on a PC you might want to try Audacity -- it's
available for free on the Web. On a PDA you might want to try Live2496
(from Gidluck Mastering) for $50.

--
Len Moskowitz PDAudio, Binaural Mics, Cables, DPA, M-Audio
Core Sound http://www.stealthmicrophones.com
Teaneck, New Jersey USA http://www.core-sound.com
moskowit@core-sound.com Tel: 201-801-0812, FAX: 201-801-0912
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 3:26:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Harvey Gerst wrote:
> I think a lot of people here would be very surprised by the performance
> of the $39 Behringer ECM8000 Omni microphone. No. it's not great for
> very loud or very quiet sources, but if you stay within those
> limitations, it's pretty amazing, and capable of making "very acceptable
> recordings".
Harvey, I don't doubt your experience with that mic. I agree the tone
was fairly reasonable, but there must be some variation in them because
I had two that were so incredibly hissy/noisy I couldn't use them for
anything. Sent 'em back.

Omnis are about my favorite default, especially for a natural sound if
the space is good or I can get close.

Steve
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 5:35:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Steve Scott" <squeegybug@netspace1.com> wrote:

>
>Harvey Gerst wrote:
>> I think a lot of people here would be very surprised by the performance
>> of the $39 Behringer ECM8000 Omni microphone. No. it's not great for
>> very loud or very quiet sources, but if you stay within those
>> limitations, it's pretty amazing, and capable of making "very acceptable
>> recordings".

>Harvey, I don't doubt your experience with that mic. I agree the tone
>was fairly reasonable, but there must be some variation in them because
>I had two that were so incredibly hissy/noisy I couldn't use them for
>anything. Sent 'em back.
>
>Omnis are about my favorite default, especially for a natural sound if
>the space is good or I can get close.

Steve,

Yes, I've heard reports from many people that the ECM8000's were too
noisy for their use. I have four of them and they all seem to be
reasonably quiet for the stuff I use them for.
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 7:48:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<normanstrong@comcast.net> wrote in
news:Nr-dneFnENLVYbveRVn-gg@comcast.com:

> "Carey Carlan" <gulfjoe@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns96CFE7F619AEDgulfjoehotmailcom@140.99.99.130...
>> <normanstrong@comcast.net> wrote in
>> news:CsydnfcXQ__NZ7jeRVn-iA@comcast.com:
>>
>>> My advice would be to buy a 4 mike mixer from Behringer and a couple
>>> of those cheap Behringer omni condenser mikes. Condenser mikes have
>>> enough output that you don't need to invest in super quiet preamps.
>>> That's more or less what I did, only I used a Mackie 1202 and 3
>>> Radio Shack PZM's. They do a wonderful job on pipe organs.
>>
>> There are some readers who won't realize that this is intended to be
>> funny.
>
> It isn't intended to be funny (and you know it!) It is my advice on
> how to start in making recordings. If the OP wants to upgrade at some
> later date, he can do so with almost no loss. I don't think it's a
> good idea to learn using expensive equipment that might turn out to be
> the wrong choice.

And on re-reading the OP, I finally realize that. He asked for a minimal
budget suggestion.

It's all a matter of scale. Having used sub $100 microphones with cheap
preamps/ADC and then using DPA 4006's and high end preamps/ADC, I can say
that I cringe at even the thought of using such gear again. But such
high standards are no longer the norm, and $39 microphones can create
what many believe to be very acceptable recordings.

For someone asking for advice on their first setup, cheap gear is the
right direction. Just realize that if you ever get really serious about
quality recording, all that gear will have to be replaced.
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 7:48:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>Carey Carlan <gulfjoe@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>It's all a matter of scale. Having used sub $100 microphones with cheap
>preamps/ADC and then using DPA 4006's and high end preamps/ADC, I can say
>that I cringe at even the thought of using such gear again. But such
>high standards are no longer the norm, and $39 microphones can create
>what many believe to be very acceptable recordings.
>
>For someone asking for advice on their first setup, cheap gear is the
>right direction. Just realize that if you ever get really serious about
>quality recording, all that gear will have to be replaced.

I think a lot of people here would be very surprised by the performance
of the $39 Behringer ECM8000 Omni microphone. No. it's not great for
very loud or very quiet sources, but if you stay within those
limitations, it's pretty amazing, and capable of making "very acceptable
recordings".
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 12:54:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Just when I start to think that I'm finally reading a thread with tons
of good advice and a very rare high S/N ratio, someone feels absolutely
compelled to pull it down a notch.

normanstrong@comcast.net wrote:
> "Paul Jones" <paul_a_n_jones@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1126476928.385371.8510@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > I'd welcome your suggestions for equipment for recording classical
> > music, usually played by a small group of musicians, but occasionally
> > with a large group, or a large organ. I have a friend who makes
> > extremely good recordings using spaced omni mics, with the following
> > equipment:
> >
> > Microphones: DPA 4006 omnis, usually with nose cones attached
> > Preamp: Buzz Audio MA-2.2
> > A-to-D Converter: RME Fireface 800
> > Recording: Sequoia software running on a PC
> > Monitor Speakers: Dynaudio BM6A
> >
> > I want to spend less money than this equipment would cost, so I would
> > appreciate suggestions about which area to economise on.
> >
> > For example, there are some omni mics on the market at a fraction of
> > the price of the DPA's, but do they produce a realistic sound and a
> > good stereo image?
> > Does any other omni mic have nose cones that turn it into a true omni?
> >
> > Perhaps you could make equipment suggestions in two categories.
> >
> > Firstly, if the budget was very limited, what is the lowest costing
> > equipment that you feel would do justice to classical music?
> >
> > Secondly if the budget was perhaps half to two thirds of the price of
> > the equipment listed above, what would be the best choice of equipment
> > for recording classical music at that price?
> >
> > One final detail, if I do buy DPA 4006 mics, which is more suitable,
> > the version with a transformer or the purely solid state version?
>
> My advice would be to buy a 4 mike mixer from Behringer and a couple of
> those cheap Behringer omni condenser mikes. Condenser mikes have enough
> output that you don't need to invest in super quiet preamps. That's more or
> less what I did, only I used a Mackie 1202 and 3 Radio Shack PZM's. They do
> a wonderful job on pipe organs.
>
> Norm Strong
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 12:58:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

OK, my apologies. I thought you were being sarcastic. I can't say I
agree with your advice, but I'll accept that you meant it sincerely.

Again, my apologies.
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 1:28:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

David L. Rick wrote:
>
> The AKG C480 has interchangeable capsules,
> too. (Avoid the earlier C460 bodies.)

Unless you have them modified (which brings their total cost to around
$425-450 each, quite a bargain IMO.)




>> A-to-D Converter: RME Fireface 800
>
>
> (This is probably the least impressive part of your friend's rig.) The
> average converter box seems to be getting worse and worse instead of
> better and better, as features and price point become more important
> than how stuff sounds. Anything that includes mic preamps is probably
> something you don't want (stuff from Apogee and Grace excepted).

The Fireface mic preamps are not my cup of tea, but the conversion is
actually quite reasonable.




> On a PC, a Lynx II card is not a bad thing.

Agreed.
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 4:15:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I <moskowit@panix.com> wrote:

>You might consider a pair of DPA 4060s, a Jecklin or Schneider Disk, one
>of our Mic2496 dual mic pre/A-to-D and a laptop PC or PDA that can
>accept S/PDIF.

By the way, if you want to hear how good this can sound, our Sampler
disk has a track that was recorded at 24/44.1 into a Dell Axim PDA with
a pair of DPA 4060s and a Mic2496. It's Copland's "Fanfare for the
Common Man", played by a major US symphony orchestra in a very fine
mid-sized concert hall. (On the CD we brought the word width down to
16-bits.)

The DPA 4060s were clipped to the opposite sides of a backpack that was
simply plunked down in a centered seat around 14 rows from the orchestra
during a dress rehearsal.

The sound quality is quite startling, and the dynamics of the piece are
incredible.

Send us a blank CD-R and we'd be happy to send you a copy.

--
Len Moskowitz PDAudio, Binaural Mics, Cables, DPA, M-Audio
Core Sound http://www.stealthmicrophones.com
Teaneck, New Jersey USA http://www.core-sound.com
moskowit@core-sound.com Tel: 201-801-0812, FAX: 201-801-0912
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 5:48:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Harvey Gerst <hargerst@airmail.net> wrote:
>>Carey Carlan <gulfjoe@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>It's all a matter of scale. Having used sub $100 microphones with cheap
>>preamps/ADC and then using DPA 4006's and high end preamps/ADC, I can say
>>that I cringe at even the thought of using such gear again. But such
>>high standards are no longer the norm, and $39 microphones can create
>>what many believe to be very acceptable recordings.
>>
>>For someone asking for advice on their first setup, cheap gear is the
>>right direction. Just realize that if you ever get really serious about
>>quality recording, all that gear will have to be replaced.
>
>I think a lot of people here would be very surprised by the performance
>of the $39 Behringer ECM8000 Omni microphone. No. it's not great for
>very loud or very quiet sources, but if you stay within those
>limitations, it's pretty amazing, and capable of making "very acceptable
>recordings".

This is true, but I will point out that the first thing they fail on
is very quiet material, like classical music often includes.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 5:51:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Harvey Gerst <hargerst@airmail.net> wrote:
>Yes, I've heard reports from many people that the ECM8000's were too
>noisy for their use. I have four of them and they all seem to be
>reasonably quiet for the stuff I use them for.

Great for drum overheads.

Totally unusable on a clavichord.
Life is just like that.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 7:38:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Harvey Gerst wrote:

> I think a lot of people here would be very surprised by the performance
> of the $39 Behringer ECM8000 Omni microphone. No. it's not great for
> very loud or very quiet sources, but if you stay within those
> limitations, it's pretty amazing, and capable of making "very acceptable
> recordings".

But, hell, one could say the same thing about cheap Radio Shack omnis
folks have been using for that kind of recording since berfore Uli was
born.

--
ha
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 7:38:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

hank alrich wrote:
> Harvey Gerst wrote:
>
>
>>I think a lot of people here would be very surprised by the performance
>>of the $39 Behringer ECM8000 Omni microphone. No. it's not great for
>>very loud or very quiet sources, but if you stay within those
>>limitations, it's pretty amazing, and capable of making "very acceptable
>>recordings".
>
>
> But, hell, one could say the same thing about cheap Radio Shack omnis
> folks have been using for that kind of recording since berfore Uli was
> born.

For a packaged version that is also surprisingly good, look
at their lapel mic.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 7:38:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Bob Cain <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
>hank alrich wrote:
>> Harvey Gerst wrote:
>>
>>>I think a lot of people here would be very surprised by the performance
>>>of the $39 Behringer ECM8000 Omni microphone. No. it's not great for
>>>very loud or very quiet sources, but if you stay within those
>>>limitations, it's pretty amazing, and capable of making "very acceptable
>>>recordings".
>>
>>
>> But, hell, one could say the same thing about cheap Radio Shack omnis
>> folks have been using for that kind of recording since berfore Uli was
>> born.
>
>For a packaged version that is also surprisingly good, look
>at their lapel mic.

Not any more. For a while they sold a lapel mike that was based
on a Panasonic capsule with a simple grille in front, which sounded
pretty good and was a very handy mike for guitar recording. It has
since been discontinued in favor of some cheaper Chinese design.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 9:07:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Bob Cain <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
>
>>For a packaged version that is also surprisingly good, look
>>at their lapel mic.
>
>
> Not any more. For a while they sold a lapel mike that was based
> on a Panasonic capsule with a simple grille in front, which sounded
> pretty good and was a very handy mike for guitar recording. It has
> since been discontinued in favor of some cheaper Chinese design.

Simply on the basis of it being Chinese, I wouldn't discount
it. I've had some dealings with a Chinese mic company and
their engineering staff and with samples of their products.
I find nothing notably wanting and some outstanding and
horribly inexpensive products. :-)

OTOH, you may well be talking from personal disappointment
in the performance of the latest R.S. product in which case
I can't opine.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 3:12:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"drichard" <DRichard@wi.rr.com> wrote in news:1126799913.951825.152540
@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> OK, my apologies. I thought you were being sarcastic. I can't say I
> agree with your advice, but I'll accept that you meant it sincerely.
>
> Again, my apologies.

And mine to you.

Recently I recorded an oboe concerto mic'ed with a pair of 4006's and a
solo BLUE B7 going into a Cranesong Spider. The capture was absolutely
stunning, revealing breathing and finger detail that I'm quite sure the
Behringer would have missed. The finesse of the 4006 and the accuracy of a
fine mic preamp coupled to superb ADC really does make a difference.

And yet, I'd guess less than 10% of my target audience would hear the
difference. A simple walkman with good earbuds in a quiet environment is
adequate. Yet, who really listens anymore?
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 3:12:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Blind Hog <blind_hog@acorn.com> wrote:
>
>And yet, I'd guess less than 10% of my target audience would hear the
>difference. A simple walkman with good earbuds in a quiet environment is
>adequate. Yet, who really listens anymore?

More classical record buyers listen than buyers of other genres. I don't
know why that is, really, because I think all music really deserves careful
attention, even junk. But if you are promoting your services based on sound
quality, you'll get more response in the classical community.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 3:14:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"drichard" <DRichard@wi.rr.com> wrote in
news:1126799659.009118.135820@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> normanstrong@comcast.net wrote:
>>
>> My advice would be to buy a 4 mike mixer from Behringer and a couple
>> of those cheap Behringer omni condenser mikes. Condenser mikes have
>> enough output that you don't need to invest in super quiet preamps.
>> That's more or less what I did, only I used a Mackie 1202 and 3 Radio
>> Shack PZM's. They do a wonderful job on pipe organs.
>>
>> Norm Strong

> Just when I start to think that I'm finally reading a thread with tons
> of good advice and a very rare high S/N ratio, someone feels
> absolutely compelled to pull it down a notch.

If you read on, you'll find the S/N is still quite high.
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 3:52:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Harvey Gerst" <harvey@ITRstudio.com> wrote in message
news:vljgi1liv0t81shbiceeqmn8erofbutiq1@4ax.com

>> Carey Carlan <gulfjoe@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> It's all a matter of scale. Having used sub $100
>> microphones with cheap preamps/ADC and then using DPA
>> 4006's and high end preamps/ADC, I can say that I cringe
>> at even the thought of using such gear again. But such
>> high standards are no longer the norm, and $39
>> microphones can create what many believe to be very
>> acceptable recordings.

>> For someone asking for advice on their first setup,
>> cheap gear is the right direction. Just realize that if
>> you ever get really serious about quality recording, all
>> that gear will have to be replaced.

> I think a lot of people here would be very surprised by
> the performance of the $39 Behringer ECM8000 Omni
> microphone. No. it's not great for very loud or very
> quiet sources, but if you stay within those limitations,
> it's pretty amazing, and capable of making "very
> acceptable recordings".

About 4 years ago I did a bunch of recordings using
borrowed Benchmark media preamp and DPA 4007s. Reality
eventually struck and I had to go back to vin ordinaire. I
now scrape by with a number of ECM8000s and among other
things Behringer ADA8000 preamp/converters.

When I had both the DPA 4007s and the ECM8000s on hand I
did a number of tests and recordings with pairs of DPA 4007
and an ECM 8000s taped to each other with the grilles
carefully aligned and Symmetrix SX202 mic preamp gain
adjusted for equal levels. The most obvious audible
difference was that the ECM8000s were perceptibly noisier.
In side-by-side measurements, any frequency response
differences 40-20 KHz were within the calibration curve of
the 4007s.

I currently have a pair of widely-spaced ECM8000s suspended
about 8' above the floor and about 20' out from the platform
at church. They are for picking up ambience and
congregational response. I was just checking the noise
performance of the dedicated tracks for those ECM8000s. I'd
estimate the observed dynamic range for those mics at about
60 dB, among the poorest in the room. They are OK for
ambience and SR, but a recording based on just them at that
location would probably be audibly hissy.
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 7:12:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:

>> "Harvey Gerst" <harvey@ITRstudio.com> wrote:
>> I think a lot of people here would be very surprised by
>> the performance of the $39 Behringer ECM8000 Omni
>> microphone. No. it's not great for very loud or very
>> quiet sources, but if you stay within those limitations,
>> it's pretty amazing, and capable of making "very
>> acceptable recordings".

>About 4 years ago I did a bunch of recordings using
>borrowed Benchmark media preamp and DPA 4007s. Reality
>eventually struck and I had to go back to vin ordinaire. I
>now scrape by with a number of ECM8000s and among other
>things Behringer ADA8000 preamp/converters.
>
>When I had both the DPA 4007s and the ECM8000s on hand I
>did a number of tests and recordings with pairs of DPA 4007
>and an ECM 8000s taped to each other with the grilles
>carefully aligned and Symmetrix SX202 mic preamp gain
>adjusted for equal levels. The most obvious audible
>difference was that the ECM8000s were perceptibly noisier.
>In side-by-side measurements, any frequency response
>differences 40-20 KHz were within the calibration curve of
>the 4007s.
>
>I currently have a pair of widely-spaced ECM8000s suspended
>about 8' above the floor and about 20' out from the platform
>at church. They are for picking up ambience and
>congregational response. I was just checking the noise
>performance of the dedicated tracks for those ECM8000s. I'd
>estimate the observed dynamic range for those mics at about
>60 dB, among the poorest in the room. They are OK for
>ambience and SR, but a recording based on just them at that
>location would probably be audibly hissy.

Maybe I'm just lucky with my four ECM8000's; they don't hiss any more
than my Audix TR-40 mics. They remain a very useful mic in my locker,
but I do tend to use them mainly for rock situations, where any
background hiss wouldn't be a problem in the mix. And yes, I tend to
use them in situations where there is not a great dynamic range
involved.

God, what's next? First I'm the poster boy for cheap Russian mics, then
cheap Chinese mics, and now I'm defending Behringer? Can I get any
lower?
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 2:43:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio.com> wrote in
news:ld9mi15qjoanhvqqcfcfom6ii4un1qkqvf@4ax.com:

> God, what's next? First I'm the poster boy for cheap Russian mics, then
> cheap Chinese mics, and now I'm defending Behringer? Can I get any
> lower?

You haven't mentioned Radio Shack.
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 2:45:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in news:gKKdnVWWxLQod7feRVn-
vw@comcast.com:

> I currently have a pair of widely-spaced ECM8000s suspended
> about 8' above the floor and about 20' out from the platform
> at church. They are for picking up ambience and
> congregational response. I was just checking the noise
> performance of the dedicated tracks for those ECM8000s. I'd
> estimate the observed dynamic range for those mics at about
> 60 dB, among the poorest in the room. They are OK for
> ambience and SR, but a recording based on just them at that
> location would probably be audibly hissy.

It's more likely that the room noise swamps the mic noise in that
environment. I find my ambient mics pick up mostly HVAC noise unless the
house is REALLY quiet.

(defending Behringer? couldn't happen...)
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 3:23:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>Carey Carlan <gulfjoe@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio.com> wrote:
>> God, what's next? First I'm the poster boy for cheap Russian mics, then
>> cheap Chinese mics, and now I'm defending Behringer? Can I get any
>> lower?

>You haven't mentioned Radio Shack.

Bad enough that I worked for Tandy/Radio Shack in the late 70s, early
80s. Many horror stories.
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 9:19:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Carey Carlan wrote:

> Harvey Gerst wrote:

> > God, what's next? First I'm the poster boy for cheap Russian mics, then
> > cheap Chinese mics, and now I'm defending Behringer? Can I get any
> > lower?

> You haven't mentioned Radio Shack.

Or the newest Phonic digital stuff...

--
ha
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 11:10:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Blind Hog" <blind_hog@acorn.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96D3BF044FC2blindhog@140.99.99.130
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in
> news:gKKdnVWWxLQod7feRVn- vw@comcast.com:
>
>> I currently have a pair of widely-spaced ECM8000s
>> suspended about 8' above the floor and about 20' out
>> from the platform at church. They are for picking up
>> ambience and congregational response. I was just
>> checking the noise performance of the dedicated tracks
>> for those ECM8000s. I'd estimate the observed dynamic
>> range for those mics at about 60 dB, among the poorest
>> in the room. They are OK for ambience and SR, but a
>> recording based on just them at that location would
>> probably be audibly hissy.
>
> It's more likely that the room noise swamps the mic noise
> in that environment. I find my ambient mics pick up
> mostly HVAC noise unless the house is REALLY quiet.
>
> (defending Behringer? couldn't happen...)

Room noise dominates at lowrt frequencies, but at higher
frequencies, there's plenty of audible hiss.
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 4:54:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Carey Carlan" <gulfjoe@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96D3BEAF86555gulfjoehotmailcom@140.99.99.130...
> Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio.com> wrote in
> news:ld9mi15qjoanhvqqcfcfom6ii4un1qkqvf@4ax.com:
>
>> God, what's next? First I'm the poster boy for cheap Russian mics, then
>> cheap Chinese mics, and now I'm defending Behringer? Can I get any
>> lower?
>
> You haven't mentioned Radio Shack.

I saw my first real Crown PZM the other day. Apart from the PSU / xformer
module, and the capsule, I'd say the Radio Shack one seems better built !

geoff
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 6:43:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 9/17/05 7:10 AM, in article YeWdneKwJpGmZ7beRVn-gA@comcast.com, "Arny
Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:

> "Blind Hog" <blind_hog@acorn.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns96D3BF044FC2blindhog@140.99.99.130
>> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in
>> news:gKKdnVWWxLQod7feRVn- vw@comcast.com:
>>
>>> I currently have a pair of widely-spaced ECM8000s
>>> suspended about 8' above the floor and about 20' out
>>> from the platform at church. They are for picking up
>>> ambience and congregational response. I was just
>>> checking the noise performance of the dedicated tracks
>>> for those ECM8000s. I'd estimate the observed dynamic
>>> range for those mics at about 60 dB, among the poorest
>>> in the room. They are OK for ambience and SR, but a
>>> recording based on just them at that location would
>>> probably be audibly hissy.
>>
>> It's more likely that the room noise swamps the mic noise
>> in that environment. I find my ambient mics pick up
>> mostly HVAC noise unless the house is REALLY quiet.
>>
>> (defending Behringer? couldn't happen...)
>
> Room noise dominates at lowrt frequencies, but at higher
> frequencies, there's plenty of audible hiss.

These are barely adapted measurement mics right?
Small diaphragm, wide even response, noisey?

>
>
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 4:05:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"SSJVCmag" <ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com> wrote in message
news:BF51A3BD.11CEA%ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com
> On 9/17/05 7:10 AM, in article
> YeWdneKwJpGmZ7beRVn-gA@comcast.com, "Arny Krueger"
> <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>> "Blind Hog" <blind_hog@acorn.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns96D3BF044FC2blindhog@140.99.99.130
>>> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in
>>> news:gKKdnVWWxLQod7feRVn- vw@comcast.com:
>>>
>>>> I currently have a pair of widely-spaced ECM8000s
>>>> suspended about 8' above the floor and about 20' out
>>>> from the platform at church. They are for picking up
>>>> ambience and congregational response. I was just
>>>> checking the noise performance of the dedicated tracks
>>>> for those ECM8000s. I'd estimate the observed dynamic
>>>> range for those mics at about 60 dB, among the poorest
>>>> in the room. They are OK for ambience and SR, but a
>>>> recording based on just them at that location would
>>>> probably be audibly hissy.
>>>
>>> It's more likely that the room noise swamps the mic
>>> noise in that environment. I find my ambient mics pick
>>> up mostly HVAC noise unless the house is REALLY quiet.
>>>
>>> (defending Behringer? couldn't happen...)
>>
>> Room noise dominates at lowrt frequencies, but at higher
>> frequencies, there's plenty of audible hiss.
>
> These are barely adapted measurement mics right?

Barely? ;-)

> Small diaphragm, wide even response, noisey?

Yes, but the noise is managable if the SPLs are in the
right range.
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 7:50:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 9/19/05 12:05 PM, in article v6ydnY98ht5UfLPeRVn-hA@comcast.com, "Arny
Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:

> "SSJVCmag" <ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com> wrote in message
> news:BF51A3BD.11CEA%ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com
>> On 9/17/05 7:10 AM, in article
>> YeWdneKwJpGmZ7beRVn-gA@comcast.com, "Arny Krueger"
>> <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Blind Hog" <blind_hog@acorn.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns96D3BF044FC2blindhog@140.99.99.130
>>>> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in
>>>> news:gKKdnVWWxLQod7feRVn- vw@comcast.com:
>>>>
>>>>> I currently have a pair of widely-spaced ECM8000s
>>>>> suspended about 8' above the floor and about 20' out
>>>>> from the platform at church. They are for picking up
>>>>> ambience and congregational response. I was just
>>>>> checking the noise performance of the dedicated tracks
>>>>> for those ECM8000s. I'd estimate the observed dynamic
>>>>> range for those mics at about 60 dB, among the poorest
>>>>> in the room. They are OK for ambience and SR, but a
>>>>> recording based on just them at that location would
>>>>> probably be audibly hissy.
>>>>
>>>> It's more likely that the room noise swamps the mic
>>>> noise in that environment. I find my ambient mics pick
>>>> up mostly HVAC noise unless the house is REALLY quiet.
>>>>
>>>> (defending Behringer? couldn't happen...)
>>>
>>> Room noise dominates at lowrt frequencies, but at higher
>>> frequencies, there's plenty of audible hiss.
>>
>> These are barely adapted measurement mics right?
>
> Barely? ;-)
>
>> Small diaphragm, wide even response, noisey?
>
> Yes, but the noise is managable if the SPLs are in the
> right range.
>
>

Heck that's ALWAYS been the case! I can make a decently quiet recording with
a 10" guitar speaker if I slam it against the front of a Twin on -7-...
Anonymous
September 29, 2005 9:38:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Are Earthworks microphones worth considering? I gather they have a
reputation for transparency, and good polar patterns.

There is quite a big range, with some models having a frequency
response up to 50 KHz. Is it worth paying the extra money for the
models with this extended frequency response?

Also, is the noise figure of 22 dBA good enough for recording quiet
classical music?

Thanks everyone for all the useful suggestions.
- Paul
Anonymous
September 29, 2005 1:26:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Paul Jones <paul_a_n_jones@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>Are Earthworks microphones worth considering? I gather they have a
>reputation for transparency, and good polar patterns.

Any small omni will have a good polar pattern and reasonable transparency.
Earthworks is very good at marketing a reasonable omni mike based on an
inexpensive capsule.

>There is quite a big range, with some models having a frequency
>response up to 50 KHz. Is it worth paying the extra money for the
>models with this extended frequency response?

If they sound better.

>Also, is the noise figure of 22 dBA good enough for recording quiet
>classical music?

Depends how it is measured. The problem is that there are a bunch of
different ways to measure noise floor, and no two manufacturers seem
to use the same thing. People at the AES standards committee are always
fighting over this. Ignore the numbers and listen.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
!