Mics and Pres to Die For-

Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2005 5:30 am

The Rodents certainly get a panning (sic) here.
http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/t/7346/9867/?SQ=cfe5c27ee472c472a92ef4275a7c07e6

I just dunno who to believe. Twisted Evil

Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2005 11:34 am

Well, if Tony Falkner likes the NT5's, then they can't be all bad.
http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/mv/msg/7926/0/32/9867/?SQ=0c7847893623619daa6dbd0d2d6afc61

Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2005 5:48 pm

clambaker wrote:

Hi Jeremy,

Interested in your comparison of a Gefell 930 with a Rode K2 after your positively evangelical experience withe the Rode. I've just convinced a studio I work at to sell a bunch of Rode's (NT 1000's, NT-2's and NT2000) in order to get one decent LDC such as the Gefell 930. Last thing I thought I'd be doing was pondering another Rode but your recent post has got me thinking . . . especially since being a local they're so affordable. My main objection to even demoing a K2 was that it shared the same capsule as the NT2000 which I find quite unremarkable. Rode have definately toned down their hyped top-end along the way but in the case of the NT2000 all that is left IMO is a kind of smeared midrange and tubby lows. My primary application is male and female vocals.

cheers

Scott

The Rode and the Gefell are different beasts. Both are useful in numerous scenarios but I find the Gefell to be far more neutral (as that's what it's designed for.) The Rode imparts a flavor - rich mids with a super clean high. If it seems too bright on female vocals (in card mode) drop it down below her chin and aim it back up - also back the polar pattern down to somewhere between card and omni. Both of these things soften the otherwise present high-range.

In any case, both are fantastic mics and if possible, one should own both. It's just that you can buy 2 of the Rodes for the price of one of the Gefells.

J.

Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 11:25 pm

For what it's worth, I just heard the RODE NT 4 on a Baroque chamber ensemble, in a fairly informal, "living room" type recording.

I was impressed enough to consider a trade with the guy...I've got some stuff piled up that he wants (power amps, etc.) and he's looking to sell his own NT4, since his employer just bought another one. Aside from the "Star-Trek Medical tool" look to it, I might give it a try on a few things. Thumbs Up

Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 2:09 am

Hey guys well i have been using these mics alot and definitly i m down with these most of the time..

Pair of Neuman TLM 103 and U87...for over heads..and other stereo recordings...
PLus i record sometimes my acoustic guitars with the BULMLein technique using Rode NT2000 they sound amazing..

SM-57s my fav...
ok this technique i came across by reading so much materials and listning to some senior engineers... its like to find the sweet spot on the snare...for the best miking position just put your hand on top of snare so that it barely touches it... and start hitting snare as hard as possible try to tell the drummer to do that because he does know the right way probably the way he plays.... now you move your hand over the snare after every hit you will feel air pushing towards your hand...the place where there is maximum preasure thats the sweet spot.. i tried this and i was amazed by the result i did the same thing for toms too...
and for my kick i most of the time use a low singal tone gated and triggered from the kick track..that sound awsome too some nice bottom end for the kick...
well i may not know much about live recordings i just like to share thigns no matter how much i know...may be if m wrong in some cases atleast i can get the correction thats wht i come to this forum its helping me alot to improve myself..and everyother day my skills are getting better

Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 2:27 am

Every other day? Nice! I like your schedule... Thumbs Up

Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 3:14 am

I'm trying out a Pacifica - the stereo mic pre from A-Designs Audio.

I see Ben is already quoted on record about this wonderful pair of pre's in one box. Anyone else tried this unit and any thoughts?

Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2006 10:08 am

I do classical location recording and acoustic recording here in Heidelberg Germany(US Army soldier)...and I have to say the DAV BG-1 is just an AMAZING pre.

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/dec03/articles/davelectronicsbg1.htm

680 bucks for 2 channels of world class sound...

Mics are Gefell M930s(MG is my favorite company by far). AKG C426B(soon to be SPAUdio modded) and Schoeps CMC6/MK2S,MK4.

DAV BG1...awesome

Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 7:36 am

Preamp to die for ? ... what ?

I don't know for sure when it comes to mic preamps.

But there is no difference between audio-power-amps.
(This has been tested many times and there were never any differences)

No there can be no differences between mic preamps (valves included).
The only factor (and of course very important) is noise.

If you feel you have to believe in something try Jesus Christ.

/Goran Sweden

Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:19 am

I really love my Buzz Audio SSA1.1
Super clean and quiet. Man, I plug in a pair B&K 4007's, open the gain right up, throw on some cans and all I get is ambiant sounds..... no mic or preamp hiss... just a gorgeous true representation of life!

Really looking forward to using it on a brass band I'm recording next month.

Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 11:19 am

goran wrote:

Preamp to die for ? ... what ?

I don't know for sure when it comes to mic preamps.

But there is no difference between audio-power-amps.
(This has been tested many times and there were never any differences)

No there can be no differences between mic preamps (valves included).
The only factor (and of course very important) is noise.

If you feel you have to believe in something try Jesus Christ.

/Goran Sweden

Well, Goran...religion aside, I think you're sadly mistaken.

First, I have heard on NO tests which prove that power amplifiers are the same. Furthermore, this assertion is absurd. This would imply that I could make a power amplifier out of budget radio shack parts and find it to be as clean and pure as an Audio Note... A tad odd. Perhaps you could point us to one of these studies. I would love to see it.

Furthermore, to insinuate that microphone preamplifiers are also identical is again, plainly absurd. Perhaps you could educate everyone in the audio industry and they can stop wasting their hard-earned money on John Hardy stuff and stick with Behringer. After all, it MUST sound the same....

Confused

Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2006 1:05 am

Cucco,

I was reading everything about this a long time ago. I can not remember any tests now.
But the fact is that all those tests have convinced rational people that there is absolutely no difference between "well constructed, non-clipping and non-EQed" power amps (it is in fact very hard to make an amp that sounds different). I have come across two very cheep stereo-radios with CD-player (since then) that I could suspect had some audiable dist. I measuerd on one of these and the transient distortin was in fact severe.

I once (upon a time) also made a blind A/B test with a stereo magasine reviewer. We listened to two power amps (both mono bloc class A non-push-pull (wonderful sound) one big one small both constructed and built by me).

He was absolutely convinced that he could hear a difference. Of course the sound was quite different when we know which one we were listening to. But in the blint test all differences dissapeared.

There has been many tests compairing vale amps with non-valve amps. The only difference in sound is implicit EQ-ing. When the valve out imp is high. And this "good-dist" do not exist.

Look here (the debate is still going on):
http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/

Of course we could put religion aside but not placebo.

I am fully convinced that a Behriner sounds as good as anything else. But there may be a difference in noise. The one and only Quality factor of mic amps.

/Goran Sweden

Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2006 9:16 am

Wow! So the only difference between preamps is noise??

That's odd. So, if you were to split a mic signal to two amps, gain match them and then flip the phase on either of them, all that would remain would be a noise print? My personal experiences tell me very much otherwise.

Now, the "EQ-ing" to which you refer may or may not be intentional. In other words, using higher quality parts will yield a more euphonic midrange for example. Is this your definition of "EQing?" If so, than EVERY product on the planet has some degree of eq-ing. THAT is what makes the difference.

Here are, in my experience, things that make a difference in the sound of an amplifier (microphone or power):

Recovery rate - a slow amp can sound dull or lifeless. This isn't necessarily a BAD thing. Sometimes, you are looking for that kind of sound

Frequency response. Let's face it, not all circuits can handle high-bandwidth, some can't even handle normal bandwidth. An amp which allows the entire signal and its harmonics through is obviously going to sound more realistic

Distortion (NO, not just another word for noise). There are even harmonic distortions, odd-harmonic distortions, linear and non-linear distortions. None of these have to do with noise, they simply have to deal with the NATURAL reproduction of sound as ALL noise/sound/music, even in nature, creates distortions.

Noise - Yup, noise.

All of these different flavors (and then some) add up to the differences between brand A and brand B amplifiers.

Just a side note - I have two multichannel amplifiers in my home theater.

1 - Rotel RMB1075
2 - HK PA5800

I have done 3 different blind tests in the past to see which I prefer as my main channels (front 3) amplifier and EVERY time, I was able to pick out the sound of the Rotel.

All three times, the sound was amplitude matched using my trusty Radio Shack SPL meter and two seperate but identical volume control premplifiers.

J.

Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2006 3:31 pm

At the mastering facility I work at, we design and build our own equipment. That equipment which we cannot build we purchase and modify to our own standards. The purpose of this exercise is to improve sonic quality.

To prove to ourselves that we are indeed making improvements, we conduct blind listening test. It is the exception when there is no sonic change (good or bad) during these tests. There are times when changes are so close that we feel we may be fooling ourselves. In these situations I switch to testing whether the listener can, at least, consistently identify A versus B. If the listener can accurately identify A, say, 19 times out of 20, then I feel confident that there is a legitimate perceivable difference.

The claim that power amps or mic-pres sound the same as a general rule is absurd.

Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 12:36 am

Cucco, Zilla

The problem here is that

if you believe in and do hear differences that are not real

your judgement about real things like different mixes and different
recording methods becomes invalid. Sad

/Goran Sweden

This topic sponsored by: