sergeantedward, post: 449470, member: 50510 wrote: repertoire: classical music, all a cappella...a lot of Renaissance music, and modern a cappella music too.

With 5k, I doubt going with 12 good mics and preamps with headphones amps and more will be possible.
If you have access to nice recording rooms, I would suggest recording with one omni mic or 2 figure of 8 mic in blumlein config. with this technique, the signers could be placed around the mics in a circle and you'll get a great sound

If I was in your position, I would concentrate to get :

• a good interface with nice converters and direct to converter inputs.
• 2 good external preamps (low noises and accurate)
• 2 high-end mics with figure 8 (with a stand and stereo bar)
• good studio monitors

The Zoom isn't a bad unit, but the preamps aren't as accurate as others we can find but of course they could be a starting point. If you want to start with buying mics and buy interface and preamps later, it could be a way to go. Just keep in mind that if you have to push the volume of the zoom preamp, you'll get electronic noises in no time.

sergeantedward, post: 449470, member: 50510 wrote: Hi all! This is an incredible website, and I feel lucky to have found it.

What a compliment, thank you and welcome to our recording community.

sergeantedward, post: 449470, member: 50510 wrote: - repertoire: classical music, all a cappella...a lot of Renaissance music, and modern a cappella music too.

Good call on the recommendations, Marco.

The first mic that comes to my mind is one of the Royer SF series. SF-12, SF-24, SF-24v . I have the 24's and they are absolutely awesome for choirs and what you are shooting.

You've had good advice from pcrecord and audiokid.

I have recorded many renaissance singing groups of the sort of size you describe. This type of music to a large extent dictates that you should not use a close miking technique, since you want the building acoustics to form a part of the sound. That would also favour your using the less dry room.

I usually start with a pair of microphones (or a single stereo microphone) at a carefully-located central point, feeding into good-quality pre-amps and converters. I rarely use exactly the same equipment each time, but my simplest kit is a stereo microphone, an Audient Mico pre-amp with optical S/PDIF output and a (pre-Retina) MacBook Pro, as MBPs of that vintage had an optical S/PDIF input. This is all easily transportable with the exception of the high stand (3 -4 m) that is required, especially when the group has a conductor and you have to position the microphones some way above the conductor's head.

There's no one type of microphone that will cover all cases. I have used pairs of condensers, pairs of ribbons as well as stereo versions of those types. You could do worse than consider a pair of AKG C414s, but there are at least half a dozen versions of these microphones, some having small "presence peaks" that make them less suitable for this type of work. For ribbons, the Royer SF-12 stereo ribbon gives lovely sound for singing groups, at the risk of being a little too lush. I've also made some great recordings with MBHO small-diaphragm condenser (SDC) microphones, which are similar to but lower-cost versions of some of the top-end Schoeps range.

When it comes to choosing your converter/interface, you either have to be confident that you will not want more than two channels, or you have to pay for a 4-8 channel unit to cover more eventualities. In the latter case, you could be laying out significant money for channels that you may not use for most of the recording work. Your new MBP unfortunately does not have the S/PDIF input, so you are going to need a USB- or Thunderbolt-interfaced pre-amp/converter (audio interface). As I indicated, high-quality audio interfaces generally are either 2-channel or 8-channel, with a few 4-channel units, but none of the good ones is low-cost. At the top end of the middle-range, Focusrite, Presonus and RME are worth looking at, and then there is a more limited choice in the upper-end range.

I'm on the same page as Boswell here....nice sounding room with as few or as many mics as it needs to get the sound that you want...which will be dictated by - amongst other things - the performers, the room and the repertoire you're recording....without knowing those things it's not really possible to give a definitive answer.

Boswell's suggestion of 414s is a good one as it allows you flexibility with the switchable polar patterns such that you can try different mic techniques. As he says, though, the different flavours of 414s complicates matters - my own preference is for 414B ULS (or earlier if they're available like the EB) over the later XLS incarnations (and definitely over things like the XL II which personally I find too bright). Other alternatives would be the AT4050 or if you can find them on the S/H market Beyerdynamic MC740. Bear in mind that if you're going to use them as a true stereo pair you'd ideally have mics from the same lineage with a similar history.

There are loads of SDC options from the Line Audio CM3 wide cardioids or OM1 omnis, through the Rode options (personal preference is actually the Line Audios over, say, the NT55), through various models including Neumann Km183/4 (or their modular variants), Gefell M300, various Schoeps mics and so on. With loads in between.

The higher up the food chain you go with mics the more the difference between them becomes a matter of preference, rather than how well they perform...for example in most circumstances if I have them available I'd choose a Schoeps MK2S over a Neumann KM183 because I prefer how they sound (usually), but you can get fabulous results with either.

Something else to bear in mind is how often you're going to be doing this kind of thing. If it's not that often, you may be better off hiring some of these things rather than investing a lot of money in stuff that will take ages to start making returns (or even to get your money back!). That way you can get a broader choice of gear and experiment (should you have time) until you find something you like rather than blindly trusting opinions of others (absolutely no offence intended to any contributors anywhere!).

Additionally, never underestimate the amount of money you may need to spend on the periphery - the stands, the cables, the shockmounts, the red light system....

Funny how relative the phrase 'sizable budget' is, huh?

You're going to have $2200-$2600 of it tied up in either a matched pair of AKG C414 XLS, or one great stereo mic like the Royer SF-12. The pair of AKGs being more versatile, but the Royer being less obtrusive and requiring less set-up, since it's always fixed at the correct angle to give a perfect stereo image. I often see guys out there with a matched pair of Earthworks SDCs too. And although it's not in the same class as any of those, the Rode NT-4 is a very respectable X-Y stereo mic capable of good results to get you started.

My budget has dictated that I go the C414 route, because I need them for their versatility in countless other applications, but if all I wanted to do was stereo choral and ensemble recordings the SF-12 would be all I'd need. I really like the stereo image you get with a Blumlein pair of C414s, but the mounting apparatus you need to do this is admittedly a little unsightly, and requires some careful assembly and set-up. If you're ever recording a live performance the aesthetics matter. If you're lucky enough to be to recording in a controlled, non-performance environment, it probably won't matter to you at all.

That will also determine whether you need super-tall stands too. You certainly don't want to put a couple thousand dollars worth of mic(s) 10-20 in the air on a flimsy stand.

So jump straight to a professional level, it's easily conceivable to burn through $3k just for the mic(s), stand(s), and cables - before you even address the interface / pre-amp part of the equation.

USB-C transfers data at twice the speed of USB 3.0, and it's backward compatible to older USB devices. Using a quality adapter cable should not have an adverse effect, but the data-speed can only be as fast as the slowest device in the chain. If I use a cable that's FW400 on one end and FW800 on the other, it's performance is limited to the FW400 spec. All other things being equal, if an interface runs well on USB 2, it should run just as well on USB 3, or USB-C. I wouldn't expect any improvement, but it shouldn't get any worse either.

How about this :

Mics (with figure of 8 polar paterns):
AKG 414 match pair : https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/C414XLSST 2249$
Royer SF 12 : https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/SF12 2495$
Royer 101 matched pair : https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/R101MP 1648$
Or
2x https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/AT4050 2x 699$

Preamps (need enough clean gain for ribbons or soft sources) :
Millennia 2 ch: https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/HV37 1439$
Or
Focusrite ISA Two : https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/ISATwo 799$

Interfaces (need line inputs for external preamps):
Audient ID 14 : https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/iD14 299$
or
Focusrite Clarett4 : https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/Clarett4Pre 599$
or
RME Fireface UC : https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/FirefaceUC 1399$

Monitors:
2x monitors : Focal https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/Alpha80 549 x 2$
or
Yamaha HS8 : https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/HS8 349$ x 2
Or
Depends on the listening environment

Sometime when we list the prices, it redirects the dream ;)

Just a further word on Fig-8s....if they're fixed pattern and they're your only pair of mics they can be limiting....especially in suboptimal spaces....

This is amazing. Thank you for all the feedback so far.

I know I'm sort of jumping into the deep end all at once here, but I've been given the opportunity now, so...! Not going to say no. I'll just jump in, and learn as I go.

So the following setup looks good to me. This below is about $3,600.

• Mic: 1x Royer SF 12 (my reading says that this is exceptionally good for classical choral singing)
• Preamp: Focusrite ISA Two
• Audio Interface: Audient iD14

My questions though...

• Is this preamp overkill? Or is investing in one with that much power going to make a real material difference to what the Royer SF 12 picks up?
• Does the Audient iD14 have what I need? Looks very simple...but at this stage, I like simple. :)

After sorting out gear, it sounds like I'll need 1x tall mic stand and 1x long cable, to run from the mic to the recording setup.

• Suggestions on a brand for very stable tall mic stands (guessing tripod w/ telescope is what I want)? Like it was mentioned above, you don't want to put $2k of equipment 10 feet in the air on a flimsy stand!
• This sounds like the dumbest question ever because all of you CLEARLY know your craft...but I've never purchased a cable before so: recommendations?

Again, thanks to everyone...I've been feeling pretty overwhelmed trying to get this sorted out, and only since reading through this thread have I started to feel like like my feet are finding the ground.

sergeantedward, post: 449503, member: 50510 wrote: After sorting out gear, it sounds like I'll need 1x tall mic stand and 1x long cable, to run from the mic to the recording setup.

K&M 20811 for center works excellent. Get all the extensions you can with this.
https://recording.org/threads/recording-choirs-need-stands-and-setup-advice.48411/page-2#post-363622
https://recording.org/tags/stands/

sergeantedward, post: 449503, member: 50510 wrote: Mic: 1x Royer SF 12 (my reading says that this is exceptionally good for classical choral singing)

You will never regret that mic.

All K&M stands are absolutely excellent. I have a set of the 12' Manfrotto Quick Stack Stands which also do nicely, but they rely on a wide footprint rather than weight if that's important to you.

According to the online specs, the Manfrottos are only 5.13 pounds each, and still I can attest that they are plenty stable at 12ft. straight up. The K&M weighs in at 22.67 pounds and of course no small part of that is in the top 11 ft.

audiokid, post: 449505, member: 1 wrote: You will never regret that mic.

Totally agree in a way, Chris, but I'm not sure if I'd want it as my only mic...possibly too many eggs in one basket...

In terms of stands, I use use both the K&M and Manfrottos mentioned. With the K&M, the boom arm gives you more flexibility and potential for reach if positioning is awkward...but they're heavy. The Manfrotto is, as stated, much lighter, but they do have a tendency to move if they're kicked by an errant choir member so quite often I'll weigh them down with sandbags...which negates the weight advantage....

I don't believe I could add anything of value that my esteemed RO colleagues haven't mentioned already..
But I will say it's refreshing to have someone ask pros for advice BEFORE they run out and purchase gear, as opposed to "I bought this $89 I/O and this $59 mic... how can I sound pro?" queries we get here.
;)

sergeantedward, post: 449503, member: 50510 wrote: Does the Audient iD14 have what I need?

The audient is a very nice unit. Its preamps are very good for the price, if you'd decide to go without an external preamp and that's why I suggested it.
The only thing I'm not sure is if the line/ins have a clean path to the converter. (which I think they don't) in that case you would be better off with the Clarett.
You see putting a preamp in a preamp is kinda like diluting porto in wine. Altought it could sound very good, you are not hearing the full quality of your external preamp.
The Clarett have 4 line ins inputs that are not tied to a gain knob so I would assume they have a clean path to the converters.

sergeantedward, post: 449503, member: 50510 wrote: Is this preamp overkill? Or is investing in one with that much power going to make a real material difference to what the Royer SF 12 picks up?

I never tried the SF12 but if it is like many ribbon microphones, the output level is lower than a large condenser mic. So having a preamp that gives you more clean gain is something very valuable. Also, even if you would use large condensers, the fact that the sources won't be close to the mic implies that you will need to put the gain up significantly. When we do that on a budget preamp, past a certain point, you'll get electric noises from the unit circuits. You won't experience that with a highend preamp.
The ISA preamps are what I would consider the most affordable of preamps I would consider highend. They have transformers at the input and output stage which will color the sound a little but they remain very clean. Their design is a variation of Rupert Neve's work and they are real work horses. I have 8 ISA preamps in my current setup and I love them ;)

If true representation of what the mic captures is a priority, the Millennia would be the best choice. There isn't many other preamps as transparent as those.

Maybe the True systems Solo/ribbon preamps could also be an alternative but I don't know them very well : https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/PSoloRib

So in conclusion, what you want to do is very specific and it presents its own challenges. Noiseless gain will be one important key of your success.

Is this a one-off, or a series? If it's going to be the only one, then hire the gear, do NOT buy it, because while it could be very useful in the future, I have plenty of gear I have bought and used once!

I'm going to ignore the gear because everyone is saying sensible stuff, based on their experiences - I'll concentrate on the singers.

The absolute critical element in all this is what do they sound like as an ensemble. They could all be seasoned pros, but what do they blend like? In my own experience of professional people doing new things, it's nowhere near as simple. Worse are those with powerful voices who often seem unable to pull it back, so their voice predominates. Whatever you do, you MUST have access to a room with real speakers where you can hear the balance - and then have the courage to move people back and forth to balance them. Professional singers who sing together in a group manage the balance and blend effortlessly, and leave you to record 'quality'. Others leave you fighting to tame some and hear others.

The style of music is also critical too - will you have clearly defined SATB separation? If so, there is scope to mic up each of these groups, rather than attempt a stereo mic technique - which in my humble view is far, far harder than doing a multitrack with a rock band!

Probably not your style, but look at this video.

4 mics, looks simple but these guys really know their stuff, and handle the things almost effortlessly.

Then compare it to this one

Not a bad recording - but every now and then certain voices pop out, their breathing is dreadful, and the acoustics seem to clash with whatever technique was used to record it. The middle parts often seem to fall away, and while some bits of it are rather nice - it's lost clarity and there's a very odd noise every now and then. The room looks like the acoustics should sound better than they do.

Then compare it to this rather weird one which holds together very well, and you can see the microphones too. Can't say I understand it, or even like it - but it's very different.

Finally - one from a cathedral where the RT60 is huge and getting definition should be tricky, but you can hear every word and the balance is really good.

Note the flown cluster in just the right place.
I found one of mine a few weeks ago from 1994, one of my first big recordings and I think I have learned rather a lot since then - and I'm still not good enough.

You have a really, really hard job coming up.

Oh forgot - if you have a conductor, the balance will be best just over his/her head, because that's where he is hearing it and adjusting it.

I don't disagree with anything you've said paulears, it's not an easy assignment. Using YouTube videos, however, for examples isn't necessarily a fair comparison unless you can definitively tell us the audio-path associated with each video.

Video 2 and Video 3 are obviously multi-camera, and by all indications, multi-track audio.

I would not be surprised to find out that the Baylor example is just using the on-board mics from the camcorder in the balcony (set to Automatic Gain). In which case, the extraneous noises we hear could be made by the generally disinterested university student who has been tasked with recording it for course credit - looking at the program to see how soon they can leave. The Auto setting would explain the garbled audio every time the dynamics swell, especially early on. I can't prove any of that, but that's my point.

Exactly! That's the problem with this kind of recording - sooooo many techniques, and I picked example that sound very different, but are different levels of complexity - but the overiding factor is that money is not guaranteed to move you up the quality scale a huge amount, until you do the basic stuff first. The example of the choir in the church. Very good choir, great building for that type of music and an appropriate technique. If you were on a really small budget, putting almost any cluster of mics in that position would produce some excellent results - and the differences in end sound would be the usual subtle things we talk about. The other large choir piece is the one where everything went the other way. The wrong mic postion for the space, a good choir but unbalanced and some 'identifiable' voices. That, in fact, is my real issue with choral recordings of randomly put together groups. The loudest voice can also be a character voice, and be heard. I've heard choirs where this person is kind of held in reserve in a piece until the characteristics of his or her voice are needed. It's a bit like that flute solo in an orchestral piece - where the composer and conductor create a 'hole' so that quiet instrument can be heard, or where in an ff section, that damn trumpet manages fff and gets over the top in a way the flute never could. Sometimes it's just a case of placement - moving a third line person to the front, pushing a front line one back - but even with professional singers, some leaders or conductors arrange them in height order, not voice order.

What must happen is that all the defects dvdhawk spotted need spotting BEFORE the recording, and headphones are pretty rubbish at doing this because you lose the ability to create a soundfield that a loudspeaker does - which is often revealing.

It sounds like the OP is an experienced recordist and probably knows much of this stuff.

My recommendation is to find the most suitable room for the singers. If you know there will be lots of edits - perhaps joining takes together, then a dry room and artificial reverb might work for you. Matching reverb tails in large churches is very difficult to manage because you need to keep silence for too long, and people always cough or shuffle around.

I still prefer X/Y, but with angle adjustments to bring it together. I have a one piece stereo mic I love, with Omni/Fig-8/Cardioid large diaphragms mounted above each other so the top section can swivel, and I use this for the recordings I do in theatres where one flown mic doesn't look too bad. In rehearsals I mount it on a boom pole (a rode one) and with headphones on wander around new venues looking for that special place where it's going to be great. Then I try to find a way to get it up there. For one recording I ended up leaving it on the boom pole and lashing the pole to an unused camera crane so the mic was almost over the orchestra, looking down at a fairly steep angle at the smallish ensemble, playing on carpet in the middle of a circus ring. The actual ring was a lift - and it wobbled and the isolation mount on the mic transferred every thump and bump to the mic, so dangling it was not ideal, but worked.

(pcrecord paulears dvdhawk )

The millennia would be a great choice for transparency, another choice in the same price range would be a Grace. Both have sufficient, clean gain to handle distance mic'ing and to give sufficient gain to Ribbons and low output dynamics as well. Both are also whisper quiet.

I have to say that Paul brought up a solid point, in that if this is a one time thing, consider renting what you need and building it into the cost of the job. Unless of course, you see yourself doing this as an occupation, and can be confidant that there are other gigs like this on the horizon.
You've gotten a lot of pro advice here in regard to equipment choices and from guys who have done this type of recording scenario before.
Both Paul and Dave Hawk have experience with what you are doing.
But you're the one who has to run your business, so keep that in mind when you come to the place where you are pulling the trigger on the gear you choose. I don't really have anything else to add, other than to do the best job you can ... do deep research on live venue recording; understand mic choices and mic placement, gain staging and capture. You've chosen a pretty intense form of recording for a "newbie" ... venue recording is a much different beast than recording in the controlled environment of the studio. Of course the gear you use will matter greatly - but you have to know how to use it to its optimum, too.

IMO of course. ;)
d.

Ps... question for Dave Hawk (dvdhawk )
Would he be best off using the simplest platform of DAW recording for this? Something easy to learn, without a bunch of bells and whistles, and that is also solid and dependable...
Perhaps something like Presonus's CAPTURE program?

Many years ago - I had the job of organising the UKs first music technology A level qualification and my area was the bit of the exam that dealt with what was called the 'natural acoustic' recording - students had to record something using stereo microphone techniques - the majority using orchestral, choral or maybe a live acoustic jazz type source. Compared with their multi-track recordings, the results were pretty dire. Nobody in the schools and colleges figured managing such a 'simple task' to be worthy of much effort. Student would be wheeled in, randomly pointing a few mics and then adding rear mics in some kind of attempt to make a rubbish classroom sound like a proper recording space. So few of them took advantage of better spaces. They'd obviously read up on mic techniques, and went into great details about using Decca Trees, ORTF and other exotic techniques, but modified to use the simple pair of C1000 mics most schools seemed to have bought. Listening was horrible. No marks were gained or lost by having a bunch of beginner musicians, or people that could not sing - the thing was graded on the quality of the recording, stereo field, avoiding noise and distortion and that kind of thing. Many managed to use cables with reversed wiring giving a huge width to the recording, or somehow managed to record in mono, or had very in the face errors. Very few sounded like professional recordings. Using a small number of mics sounds easy. It isn't!

First, I would say that although I'm very satisfied with the classical choral recordings I've done, I would gladly defer to Boswell, Chris, and Keith Johnson, who I think it's safe to say have much more classical recording experience than I do. There simply isn't a lot of opportunity for classical work in my (decidedly red-) neck of the woods. And when I do get a job recording choral groups, it's a group of 100-200 of the best high school voices from all over the region, jammed shoulder to shoulder on risers around a grand piano, on a stage in a public high school auditorium, with far from optimum acoustics, audible lighting dimmer fans, noisy air-handlers, and a house packed full of friends and family from 1-101 in age - with all the noises that entails. What could possibly go wrong?

DonnyThompson, post: 449533, member: 46114 wrote: Ps... question for (dvdhawk )
Would he be best off using the simplest platform of DAW recording for this? Something easy to learn, without a bunch of bells and whistles, and that is also solid and dependable...
Perhaps something like Presonus's CAPTURE program?

I'd like to hope his top-of-the-line new computer can record tracks 2 at a time into any DAW at any sample-rate and be solid and dependable. I like Capture for live performances, where there's no Take #2, no stopping the recording (or the show) to make adjustments. I'm sure whatever comes bundled with the Audient will do the job just fine. I get the impression (from the fact he can choose a venue), he's not constrained to one take and all the other wildcards you get doing a live performance. Playback is possible with Capture, but it is strictly the playback source - there would be no mixing, no Eq-shaping, or anything else you might want control over.

I've learned much from this thread. I'm by no means an "expert" in this part of the craft. It's interesting to hear guys like Paul ( paulears ) and Keith ( Keith Johnson ) talking about their own experiences.

I haven't nearly the same time and experience with live choral or orchestral recording that they (or others here) do.
The most I was ever involved, was when I interned at Telarc, many years ago, ( 80's) and while I learned a lot more than I knew up to that point, my short-time position as an intern certainly didn't qualify me as an expert in this field.
For that matter, it didn't even qualify me as a novice.
Truthfully, I barely got my feet wet. It's an experience I'm glad I had, but I didn't take advantage of it as much as I should have.
I was offered a position as an AE in training, and I declined; at the time I was more interested in starting my own studio business.

I was into MIDI, and guitar amps, and live drums, and drum machines, and all the other things that made up Rock and Pop production during those years.

There were a few key things that I did learn while I was there, the first was that the space itself matters - big time. Telarc was working with the Cleveland Orchestra, whose home was Severance Hall,which is a gorgeous sounding room.
Still, there was always a discussion about which mics to use, and where to place them. I learned about different mics, different mic arrays, and how important ( crucial) their placement was.

These guys had some serious game in their mic locker, too... with Neumanns, Schoeps and Sankens being used frequently. But placement was a huge part to the recording sessions.
One more than just one occasion, I recall seeing a lead engineer moving a room mic - sometimes as little as just an inch in any given direction - to adjust for something he heard - (most often, things I couldn't hear myself )- and making adjustments that seemed to me to be minuscule at most, thinking to myself "how will this matter?" Except it did matter, and obviously those cats knew what they were doing.

I think it's also important to mention that the engineers working at Telarc were all classical music aficionados. They loved the music, and they knew what to listen for. These were not "rock" guys. They were fans of classical choral and orchestral music. Some were also Jazz fans as well. IMO, I think that being a fan, and being intimately familiar with the music you are recording and all that it entails, makes a huge difference. They were listening for subtle nuances that I didn't have the ears for because I wasn't familiar with the genre(s).

I was never all that interested in live venue recording - although looking back now, I should have been. But it was the 80's, I was young - and myopic - thinking only of recording, performing and producing rock and pop.
Being as short-sighted as I was is a regret that I still think about from time to time. I didn't see at that time that I could have learned much; skills that would have translated to many different styles of recording.

FWIW
-d.

I think there's a huge difference from the experiences people get recording popular music - in any of the strands from music that has it's won internal balance.

I noticed in my first few jobs engineering (well, to be honest, writing out paperwork, and making tea) that nobody made changes to anything until the person in charge started doing their stuff. I remember a big band session where they were recording in A/B - a U87 either side, and some spot mics for the drums, piano and double bass. I kept mentioning that the saxes were mega loud compared to the brass on the other side, and the piano would be totally lost - nobody would hear it - plus the double bass was pointless because he didn't even have an amp! Nobody listened to me - I was 19, I think - but I knew I was right. Then Syd Lawrence, the bandleader strolled up to the centre and said he needed to do just one song before we started. The St Louis Blues March. It starts with the drums - one mic overhead, one just in front of the kit. Syd was totally laid back - Ronnie Verrell was the drummer, who I met many times afterwards over the years in different bands. I can't remember much else because I got blown away. My first big band session, and standing there in the middle it was like a jigsaw - everything worked. They didn't even get to the end of the number, as Syd stopped them. I think somebody did move one of the mic stands - but if they did it was a tiny move. The record which I actually bought, sounded exactly like what I heard in that pretty tatty and dirty recording studio. Six months later I applied to the BBC, and got rejected! They liked the experience I had, but I could not explain what bias current actually did, and at that time - technical knowledge was essential.

Since then, every job where the actual performers sound good on their own has been the hardest for me - to capture that sound, as simply as I could. The minute every sound source could have it's own mic, and be tweaked individually, I lost a bit of interest. Multi-track recording spoils some kinds of recording. The benefits of clarity and editing and all that kind of thing don't really improve the sound - assuming the simple recording is done by somebody sensitive to the material. Like Donny said, you really have to 'get' orchestral and choral recording - I really believe that being able to follow a score (which isn't the same as reading a score) is vital. Some of those classical names really had a gift making that really quiet, but important line get heard.

For what it's worth - I think televising orchestras is totally different from recording just the audio. On TV, if you see that guy pick up the piccolo - it also gets a fader nudge on the spot mic they snuck in for just that bit. For the audio only recording - that fader push doesn't happen.

Chalk and Cheese!

Hi all,

Been following along with great interest. Thanks for all the posts.

I was planning on making my actual purchases tonight. But then, I called SweetWater, just to make sure I was getting gear that would all work together, if I needed any extra cables, wasn't missing any details, etc...

The guy I talked to, who certainly seemed knowledgable, thought that it would be smart for me consider spending more money on my interface to get quality converters, and just drop the preamp altogether, so I could spend the money to get the UA Apollo Twin MKII Duo (https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/ApolloTDmkII).

(And then in the future, consider adding a preamp to the chain, once I had some more money to spend on it.)

But this just throws me down a whole new (somewhat confusing) path. Basically, I don't really even understand the built-in preamp setup with the Apollo. It's not straightforward. They don't list gain or specifics like that, like most other built-in preamps do. And from googling around, it sounds like a pain to bypass their built-in preamp (for a clean setup with an external preamp).

This guy thought basically that

• rather than buy Focusrite Clarett4 interface + a preamp, he thought it's better to go with an interface with higher quality converters and just ignore the preamp

Thoughts on this? Good/bad advice?

It's just a whole new line of inquiry I hadn't even been aware of.

Regarding bypassing the pres and routing directly to the converters, You may want to post your queries of this device on the the UA forum.
The gain on the pre is 65db, by the way.
I found that spec and others by googling the owner's manual for the unit.

sergeantedward, post: 449591, member: 50510 wrote: This guy thought basically that

• rather than buy Focusrite Clarett4 interface + a preamp, he thought it's better to go with an interface with higher quality converters and just ignore the preamp

Thoughts on this? Good/bad advice?

It's just a whole new line of inquiry I hadn't even been aware of.

When recording, the sound will be as good as your worst unit in the signal path.
I have no doubt that the Twin has good converters, but I'm guessing it will be very subtle difference.
You sure need to confirm if the line-ins have a clean path to the converters. I had to use a preamp in a preamp for a while and once I had a clean path, it made a big difference.
As for the power 65db is ok, to record a distant source with a ribbon mic ??? Not sure it will be clean.

At risk of repeating both myself and paulears , you're much better off hiring or borrowing this stuff first to get a feel of whether or not it's going to work for you...

It's almost impossible to comment (with greatest respect to pcrecord ) as to whether or not you'll get enough clean gain out of a particular preamp for a particular mic without more knowledge of the performers, the venue and the repertoire...for example you have (I assume) no idea about where in the room the mic will need to be, how loud they're going to sing and so on...

Marco is totally correct, of course, that in the more distant and quiet situations you'll need a lot of clean gain...but how often will you need that?

I'm really not trying to be over picky...but I am trying to stop you falling down the hole that many of us - including me - didn't avoid early on i.e thinking that there's one ideal solution that will encompass every situation you meet...and especially in some ways with a one trick pony that's a single stereo mic...

I was lucky enough early on to be able to borrow all sorts of gear from things as 'simple' as shockmounts, bespoke cable assemblies (e.g. 4 pair cables with tails specifically for particular 4 mic main arrays), stands, mic preamps and microphones from single SDCs to a Brauner VM1 and full on arrays of matched mics. I used that knowledge to - over a period of time - extend my own inhouse gear to a 24 to 32 channel rig that can cover (most) classical things one could throw at it...I'd struggle to give the requested balance for, say, a large scale crossover gig or maybe a full on film score concert where the micing can be significantly different.

My advice really would be look for something that allows you more flexibility with your mic positioning so I'd advise two separate microphones (if you're just going with a pair)...go for good quality preamps and don't worry as much about the converters...modern circuit design is such now that pretty much all the mid budget and above interfaces contain decent enough devices...moving a mic array a couple of inches will have far more impact on your recording than the converters...as will the quality of your recording venue...you can always upgrade to Prism / dCS later if your workload and clientlist warrants it :)

The Audient iD14 has already been mentioned above. I've got one of those that I take with me for mobile editing etc with the laptop. The pres are very good and the converters never get in my way. I've used it both as a 2 channel device with the internal pres and as part of a 10 channel recording expanded with an ASP880 via ADAT....my client has never questioned my choice of preamps ;)

All of this, of course, is just an opinion...I guess I try and think more now about future use as well as my current needs in everything I buy.

By way of illustration, I'm now (almost) regretting buying a pair of nickel KM183 omnis early on when I could (and should) have got black ones like my KM184s...similarly when I had some bespoke cables made I'm regretting not using black Neutrik XLR barrels...

The reason for both of these is that it makes them more obvious when in camera shot and I'm looking at providing more audio to video sync...and it's important to the video guys...

Keith Johnson, post: 449598, member: 49792 wrote: It's almost impossible to comment (with greatest respect to pcrecord ) as to whether or not you'll get enough clean gain out of a particular preamp for a particular mic without more knowledge of the performers, the venue and the repertoire...for example you have (I assume) no idea about where in the room the mic will need to be, how loud they're going to sing and so on...

One thing I know for a fact; most budget interfaces onboard preamps can sound very good when you dial them to their sweetspot but when you pass 75% of their available gain you'll get noises. So on a 65db preamp you may only get 49 usable db...

Of course, some interfaces have better preamps than others. Audient and UA surely are among them.

Keith Johnson I know Audient makes good units. I'd like to know; How are the id14 and ASP880 preamps on high gain settings? Do they go up to max without noises?
I don't want to challenge you, I honestly want to know from someone who use them. I did have the ASP800 on my buying list for a while ;)

By way of a further illustration...

Hopefully you'll forgive any currency conversion issues, but by my reckoning, you could get an Audient iD14 and both a pair of Line Audio CM3 cardioids (they're actually more like wide cardioids) and a pair of Line Audio OM1 omnis for round about $1k US.

Alternatively, you could get a pair of Schoeps CMC65...which are switchable pattern SDCs between cardioid and omni, broadly similar to the MK4 and MK2s capsules...they'd cost you about $4k for the pair....import a Crookwood Paintpot (for reference in case you've not come across them before: http://www.studiocare.com/crookwood-paintpot-mkii-dual-channel-mic-preamp.html?___store=default&utm_source=GoogleShopping&gclid=COKprsqRrtMCFUeeGwod9d0JCw ) and you'll likely be at $5.5-6k for a broadly 'similar' stereo system...it's down to your own ears and those of your clients and their expectation as to whether you want or need to justify the added expense.

pcrecord, post: 449599, member: 46460 wrote:

Keith Johnson I know Audient makes good units. I'd like to know; How are the id14 and ASP880 preamps on high gain settings? Do they go up to max without noises?
I don't want to challenge you, I honestly want to know from someone who use them. I did have the ASP800 on my buying list for a while ;)

They're really not that bad at all...I've cranked them up fairly high (>90/95%) without even noticing them...and I've used them on both the older ASP008 and later ASP880 models. I've not used the ASP800...but both of the later incarnations have been reviewed by Hugh over at SOS who's opinion I trust so I have no reason to doubt it'd be as good.

I have very few reasons to go that high with the gains though, I normally don't crank things up more than 12-2 o'clock...most of my sources don't require it...

My original ASP008 choice was guided by the fact that there were racks of them in use at the Classic FM Live gigs I first attended as an assistant...and when you've got multiple units, each of 8 channels it would appear that it's generally not an additive problem ;)

Keith Johnson, post: 449601, member: 49792 wrote: They're really not that bad at all...I've cranked them up fairly high (>90/95%) without even noticing them...

That's very good, thanks !

The Audient pre-amps are excellent. I have a 2-channel Audient Mico (analogue and optical S/PDIF out) and also their ASP880 (analogue and ADAT out) that Keith mentioned. Both these boxes work well with the ribbon mics that I have (Beyer M500, B&O BM5 stereo and also a Beyer M130/M160 M-S combo) without excessive pre-amp noise, even around 90% gain settings.

I selected the ASP880 not only because I'm a fan of the Audient pre-amps, but because that unit has a balanced insert loop on every channel. This means that you can use the balanced analogue output from the pre-amp and the direct-to-ADC balanced input at the same time, with different signals if you want. An 8-channel box like that makes a very good expansion unit for an ADAT-equippped audio interface, the iD14 being an example.

I've not used the new Apollo Twin MkII, so can't comment on a audio quality comparison, but I've studied the Apollo documentation and sales literature extensively. UA appear to have produced these doubtless excellent-sounding products as a vehicle for running their real-time software emulations of classic pre-amps. This is an interesting idea, but I'm not sure it's the direction that is needed for the OP in this thread.

My reading of the relevant documentation on the Appollo Twin, Audient iD14 and the Focusrite Clarett 2PRE is that the line inputs on all of these units are sent through the pre-amps.

Boswell, post: 449604, member: 29034 wrote: My reading of the relevant documentation on the Appollo Twin, Audient iD14 and the Focusrite Clarett 2PRE is that the line inputs on all of these units are sent through the pre-amps.

Did you have time to check the Clarett 4pre, it has 4 independant line-ins on the back. I bet those could be direct to converters..

pcrecord, post: 449605, member: 46460 wrote: Did you have time to check the Clarett 4pre, it has 4 independant line-ins on the back. I bet those could be direct to converters..

Yes, I checked and it's inconclusive. The 4Pre documentation talks about having only 4 pre-amps (hence the product name), and there are visibly only 4 gain controls, yet the specifications say that there is a 57dB gain range on the rear-panel line inputs 4 - 8, the same as the front panel line inputs 1 - 4. I can't find any internet references to these additional 4 line inputs other than reproductions of what is in the Focusrite sales literature. Putting block diagrams of equipment in user manuals seems to have gone out of fashion.

dvdhawk, post: 449506, member: 36047 wrote: All K&M stands are absolutely excellent. I have a set of the 12' Manfrotto Quick Stack Stands which also do nicely, but they rely on a wide footprint rather than weight if that's important to you.

According to the online specs, the Manfrottos are only 5.13 pounds each, and still I can attest that they are plenty stable at 12ft. straight up. The K&M weighs in at 22.67 pounds and of course no small part of that is in the top 11 ft.

I still use the older Atlas stands with the screw together extensions for tall stand miking. One hint: Go to a sporting goods store (like Dick's, Modell's, etc.) and get some 25 lb barbell weights which will fit over the tube of the stand, and add mass to the stand. This comes in handy, especially where people or performers move around. Better to have 25 or 50 pounds of ballast on that stand base, rather than see expensive gear knocked over. Another hint: If you use boom stands, safety the counterweight (or mic end) end if possible, in case something slips.

I agree, using barbells or sandbags for ballast keeps the center of gravity much lower and less likely to tip over. Plus, having less weight above the center of gravity always seemed to me like it would cause less damage and / or injury, if it ever did tip over.

Always worth looking at the manfrotto range of grip kit for video. Some excellent HD kit that would easily convert to mic mounting - and it's cheaper that proper cathedral type stands.

paulears, post: 450296, member: 47782 wrote: Always worth looking at the manfrotto range of grip kit for video. Some excellent HD kit that would easily convert to mic mounting - and it's cheaper that proper cathedral type stands.

I'm not familiar with them, Paul.
Are they a U.K. Company?
Just curious.

No - Worldwide, originally Italian, I think. They make all sorts of camera type gear, but have plenty of stands. I have two heavy duty ones that go up to around 8ft, and they have a 3/8 thread on a slide out bracket that I can stick an adaptor on - they're designed with two TV spigot - bit and small versions. They also do things called magic arms which are sort of like bolt on booms. Not amazingly expensive.

I have a set of these Manfrotto 12ft. stands, which I like. They are lightweight, but very stable straight up. I'm not sure I'd use a boom on top of them, but a crossbar that distributed the weight evenly on each side of the mast would probably be OK.

Manfrotto makes great camera tripods for photo and video, and also stands for lighting and backdrops. You'd find them at B&H or FullCompass, or other such retailers that carry photo / video products.

Manfrotto was indeed originally an Italian company, and they were eventually bought by the same British company (Vitec) that bought into Bogen's photo division here in the US. Bogen does have an interest in tripods and photo/video, but of course, more famous to guys like us for their nearly bullet-proof audio amplifiers and mixers. Bogen amps have been used for everything from commercial public address to studio work in the early days (think Roy Buchanon's guitar rig, Les Paul's studio, etc.)

I use the manfrotto 1004BAC as well...but I also wouldn't want to use them with a boom...although I'd use them with the mic bar (expired links removed) with equally distributed weight.

This is the ones I have https://www.manfrotto.co.uk/heavy-duty-stand and the magic arms are these ones https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/325444-REG/Manfrotto_244N_244N_Variable_Friction_Magic.html?sts=pi