I will tell you on the weekend. My TRP arrives tomorrow morning and the first thing I am connecting to it, will be a pair of Coles 4040's.

I think it will have to improve the SF12 as much as can be possible.

A well designed ribbon mic will produce virtually no self noise.With ribbons, There are no active electronics to produce noise, so any noise generated(barring a damaged mic) is a product of mic pre's ,cables, or anything else in the signal path.

With the powered mics (R-122, R-122V and SF-24)Royer claims that the self noise spec is < 18 dB. You can find that info in royer's cut sheets and manuals @ http://royerlabs.com/downloads.html#cutsheets

With passive mics like ribbons and dynamics (a ribbon is like a moving-coil dynamic but with only half a turn on the coil), the only self-noise is the thermal noise of the equivalent resistor. The critical thing, especially with ribbons, is to match them to the preamp. The AEA TRP should do exactly that for you. However, its quoted noise performance of "-130 EIN noise figure" is not meaningful without a source impedance being specified.

I for one would be interested to hear your comments on how the combination performs.

All I know is the SF12 is a bit noisey when I used it with the AMEK 9098, which is a very quiet preamp. I recorded string quartets with it and you can hear the hiss quite clearly. If I use condensers with the AMEK, there is no audible noise from the mics or the preamp.

The SF24 is quieter than the SF12 but only by about 2dB or so, but this is a noticeable and significant improvement. I imagine the ribbon pre will be the best preamp of any for use with the SF12, to minimise the self noise.

Ribbons mics have always gotten' a bad rap for producing more noise. It may be true but there isn't another solitary mic that sounds like a ribbon. So, I live with a little perceptual hiss if the ribbon IS the sound I'm lookin' fer! Considering the proliferation of software "noise reduction" capabilities, not to mention a little downward ducking at the threshold of the noise would make me not worry about some puny little noise before I record?? It's almost not werth disscusin;?

RIBBONS RULE!!
MS Remy Ann David

As a beginner, I confess, I'm still on the learning curve even with basics like ohms and the figures and symbols indicating a pre-amp's noise signature. However, with the help of Rich, I've discovered that the ULN2 pres are very quiet - at least as quiet as Millennia - and that the input impedance (3.3k ohm) is right in the pocket as regards the output of the SF12 (300 ohm). Just to check, I sent samples of the preamp self-noise to the guys at Metric Halo, and it passed with flying colours.

So I'm assuming now that most of the fairly substantial noise I'm hearing is in fact the microphone itself. I might be asking too much from it! Nevertheless, I still hope that the TRP is even quieter and look forward to hearing about it over the weekend, Dave.

Are the 4040's quieter?

Remy Ann - agreed on the sound of this ribbon at least. Very natural and smooth. I haven't heard any other ribbons apart from samples of the SF24 on the Royer site - samples that amazed my ears! and some Coles 4040 samples which amazed them even more! None of these samples, though, approached the same level of noise I experienced with the SF12. Perhaps I could learn to live with it - quite happily - if it were just a tad quieter.

Pace Boswell - I'm hoping now that those 18000 ohms of the TRP will help reduce the SF12's own noise. Thank you for the excellent insight. I've actually got a TRP on order now - with the option of exchanging if it makes little difference; so I should be able to hear for myself. But am still very interested to hear the insights and views of my betters.

Cheers.

Well, I've managed to answer my own first question (-:
Was able to test the SF12 on a TRP over the weekend. The sound of the mic definitely improved: more body and depth; but it made no difference to the noise generated by the mic. Alas!

Would anyone like a used SF12 in excellent condition??? :-)

Any news about TRP with your Coles, Dave?

For what it's worth...

Before I had my custom preamp made for the SF12 I was using a pair of Amek PurePath preamps, or else the preamps on my old and much loved Studer 169 console - depending on the tone I wanted to impart on the recording.

With less-than-ideal preamps, I found that much of the noise was simply due to the higher amounts of analog gain required. So I got into the habit of running the electronics at lower levels and making up the level with digital gain in mastering. My recordings would typically sit between -30dB FS and -40dB FS, then I'd 'amp it up' in Wavelab. No problem...

Some people may disagree with that, but if you're recording 24-bit and have a decent AD converter, there's no problem sitting around -35dB FS...

Thanks Simmo. I was hoping you'd chime in with some advice (have read previous posts, and knew you were an SF12 user). I'll try that tonight.

Duckman wrote: I'll try that tonight.

Good luck with it. Remember, it's not going to do anything about the microphone's self noise, that's there to stay. But on less-than-ideal preamps it might make a difference.

My old Studer 169 was a lovely, lovely, lovely sounding console. The preamps were very good (as far as transformer balanced preamps go), but with the kinds of gain needed for the SF12 on soft sources I could hear the preamp noise increase considerably when the gain knob was turned beyond about 2 o'clock. So, I used to try to find the point where I thought I was getting as much gain as possible before the preamp noise became significant.

In those days I was using a Prism AD124 AD converter feeding a Tascam DA45HR 24-bit DAT recorder. When I found that ideal noise point on the Studer's gain curve, the recording level would be sitting somewhere between -40 and -30dB FS on the Tascam.

Of course, someone who is a lot smarter than me when it comes to noise might be able to prove that this is all bollocks, the signal/noise relationship remains linear and I'm kidding myself. And they may be right...

Well I connected up the AEATRP to the Coles 4040's tonight and played my D35 into them in Blumlein. I had sloppy old toneless strings on, but the bass end was almost uncontrollable, the Coles have HUGE somewhat muddy bass (actually proximity effect), but the top end is really extended and its all VERY quiet. Had to get the pair at least 1.5m away before it sounded half normal. TRP has plenty of quiet gain.

When I put some decent strings on, and get a good sample recorded, I will post it. Very impressed, particularly of the low noise floor and the sweet natural tonality.

Simmosonic wrote:
Good luck with it. Remember, it's not going to do anything about the microphone's self noise, that's there to stay. But on less-than-ideal preamps it might make a difference.

Thanks Simmo. Yes... the ULN2 I'm using is very quiet at high gain, so I'm thinking that isn't the problem.

I fear the mic is to blame - at least the one I own. Can a ribbon get noisier with age?

Duckman wrote: Can a ribbon get noisier with age?

I can't imagine any mechanism there for it to do so in any significant way, but I'm not an expert on noise. Also, when it comes to ribbons, I tend to agree with Remy - noise is part of the deal.

If the ribbon was stretched or otherwise damaged or impeded in its movement it might require more gain to get the same output, which could be interpreted as being noisy. But if that happened, you'd probably hear more than just noise. Or, perhaps the magnet has suffered some damage or wasn't fully magnetised, and therefore the current induced into the ribbon is lower.

I think you need to compare your SF12 with another one, through the same preamp and so on, as a point of reference. You could use a two channel preamp, with one side of each SF12 on the same sound source at the same time. Match the gains, then remove the sound source and check out the noise.

Simmosonic wrote: I think you need to compare your SF12 with another one, through the same preamp and so on

Yes indeed... but pretty well impossible for me, unfortunately.

I'll probably end up with the Coles. Seems like they're quieter and have more sonic extension.

Would love an SF24, but the price ... I'm not in this professionally and can't really justify it. The Royer design is so bloody convenient!

Strangely, Schoeps have become an option for me now...

Actually, on a stereo mic like this, a good 'first level' check is to do a test comparing the two channels (for noise level). Then swap the channels (to make sure the two channels of your pre have the same noise level. If there was something wrong with the mic, which is really two independent mics in one housing, it is unlikely that both channels of the mic would have exactly the same problem. So, if they are both the same, I'd say 95+% chance this is just the noise floor of your system.

You might also want to look carefully at the noise floor of your system. Short the mic input with 150 ohms and then measure the noise floor with the max gain (assuming you are using that with the Royer) on the preamp. Carefull attention to grounding and stray magnetic fields from racked gear can really pay off. (I'm working down the noise in my portable rack as we speak...)

Michael

mdemeyer wrote: Actually, on a stereo mic like this, a good 'first level' check is to do a test comparing the two channels (for noise level).

Good advice! (I wish I wrote that...)

Thanks Michael. I will try testing each mic.

Have already tested the preamp noise - and hope I did it correctly - wired pin 2 and 3 of an xlr plug together for a terminal, and recorded the sound of each channel. They were very quiet at 60db gain, and quite in line with the impressive specs of the unit (Metric Halo ULN 2). Plug the Sf12 in however... :-)

Duckman wrote: Strangely, Schoeps have become an option for me now...

That *is* strange. If you can't afford an SF24, how can you afford a pair of Schoeps?!?!

Simmosonic wrote: That *is* strange. If you can't afford an SF24, how can you afford a pair of Schoeps?!?!

There's an ebay listing for a mk2 pair of caps. Adding two new CMC6 bodies would make it around $3300, depending on the bidding. A brand new a pair of schoeps caps and bodies would cost around $4600 - according to one Melbourne dealer. If you know of a cheaper deal, please let me in on it. I'm pretty green about all this and am still finding my feet as to where to look for the best deals.

Re the SF24, my local dealer could get me one for around $5400 - and that's the cheapest I've seen it. Frontend Audio has them listed for $6805
http://www.frontendaudio.com.au/catalog/FEA%20RETAIL%20PRICING.pdf

Both prices are beyond me - I'm prepared to spend around $4000

Problem with the second hand schoeps deal is that the Mk2 would probably be a bit dark for micing a choir from a few meters away.

I'm open to any further ideas about a better deal on the SF24.

Cheers,

Dave

An alternative for Schoeps is:
http://www.musicians-gear.com

A pair of Coles 4040s on the other hand can be had for around $3840 - which is within range... and perhaps the best option sonically for the application for which I want them.

Since however, this is a once only, 'desert Island' kind of purchase (ie, I won't be buying any other mics for a long time - budget restrictions etc), I am a little confused as to whether I might best be served by omni condensers as 'all round' microphones. I would also be recording guitar/folk music, and hopefully some early music instrumental stuff - lutes, viola da gamba etc. Problem is, I can't get rid of the idea that ribbons just sound better :-)

There is no question that a pair of omnis is a better all round purchase, much more versatile than a pair of Coles. The Coles are huge, heavy, difficult to mount in Blumlein, you could never use them in a live concert as a main pair. Blumlein is one of the trickiest techniques to setup and get in the right position, omnis are much less critical on placement.

Blumlein with ribbons is just another flavour that you should try and it succeeds with many instruments and voices.

But your first pair of mikes should defintely be a pair of omnis.

Dave, thank you for the tip - the saving represented there on Schoeps is pretty stunning (around $1000), bringing them well within range.

[I know this is a Ribbon thread BUT: would you say that the Mk2S capsule is more appropriate for choral - I see you own a pair. I'm hearing from other friends on this site that Gefell M296 is a very nice alternative too.]

Choosing 'desert island' is impossible!

Back to ribbons: are there any comparable 'factory outlet' type sites that include Royer?

*** just noticed your latest post: thank you Dave for the advice... I need such words of wisdom at the moment ***

Actually I think the problem may be the preamp.

The ULN is probably very good (I have to admit I have not used them), but running a ribbon mic on quiet sources will be a bit above what it can handle. The micpres are targeted mainly at running condensor mics. Used with a ribbon you are not at the optimal impedance, the mic pres has extra stuff for handling phantom power and is tuned for something like 40dB. One extra stage of amplification might be what is needed to get the ULN up to the task.

As for the SF24 which I have used I think the noise level is around 18dBA, a little more than many mics used for recording quiet perfomances but well below the ambiance noise in most rooms. With correct gainstagin you should be able to reach about the same performance from an SF. But the output is very much below what you get from a condensor and hence the topology of the mic pre should be different (mark, not better, only more suited for this specific application).

Regardless, the SF24 is a difficult mic to use. In the right circumstances it gives the best sounds you can ever get in a recording, really lovely. Very often though the Blumlein pattern simply does not work with the acoustics of the room. It would take a brave person to have an SF12 (same goes for SF24) as the single tool used for recording. There is definitely a reason why most of the world moved to cardioid mics once they where perfected.

So in a tangent to this posting, my "single-tool" mic setup would be two cardioids in ORTF, and then why not the Schoeps MK4 then. My favourite setup (recently tested) is the MSTC64, where the capsules are fixed in an ORTF setup.

Gunnar

I agree that a pair of ribbons as your only pair of mics is not ideal. If you are thinking schoeps, I would consider a matched pair mk21 capsules.

I own and use an SF12 alot, either through Millennia or Broadhurst Gardens, and either on choral or brass.

Perhaps I am not listening correctly, but the micamp noise (which is really what we are talking about as the SF12 is a passive device) simply is not distracting to me or my clients for either application.

Having said that, would an SF24 be quiter? Yes, definitely. Is the difference worth the money? For me, no.

You wondered about the Schoeps MK2S for choral-- if you are after a crunchy, pop vocal sound, then go for it. Otherwise, you would have to get so far back that it would be more wash than anything, amd only in rooms that had significant reverb.

Schoeps MK21 is a much better all-around choice. If that is not financially possible then the MK2 in conjunction with a Jecklin and LPEQ would also be viable. Note: I am not advising the use of Jecklin on everything, but for chamber and bigger the imaging is just superb.

Life is full of tradeoffs!

Rich

Now, let me stick my head out a bit. Shop it off if you know better.

It does not matter that the SF12 is totally passive, it still has a noise level. Noise levels are generally (in mics that is) expressed as an equivalent sound level. Say that the noise level is 18dB, then the electrical noise coming out of the mic is as strong as if there had been a sound of 18dB in the room. Well, my understanding at least.

Now for the noise part of a passive mic. There are two different mechanism. The mic membrane is continuously impinged on by air molecules (mostly nitrogen gas, but still). This brownian motion creates a signal that goes out of the mic. Due to the mechanics of randomness, the larger the membrane is, the lower the noise level is. A ribbon membrane is generally rather small, especially if you compare it to a typical one-inch Neumann type of mic, so the noise level is higher.

The second effect is the so called Johnson noise that occurs in all resistors. Long time ago I could calculate on this, my memory is that larger resistance gives higher noise voltage and higher temperature has same effect. This effect can also be expressed as an equivalent sound level.

So, cut my head off again, from a purely theoretical point of view, the SF24 and the SF12 would have about the same noise level as they use the same membrane. The difference in practical usage is that the SF24 has one stage of amplification optimized for the actual impedances and levels, and that most mic amplifiers at that impedances / gain requirements are rather far off their optimum.

Typically a mic amp has a potentiometer to control gain. This to me generally signifies that the amp has one gain stage which is controlled by the potentiometer. The Millennia and the Dav are not typical in that they use several decks on a switch. This means that the gain can be controlled at two (or even more) gain stages. The effect is that the Millennia / DAV has a larger optimum range than the preamp controlled by a single pot. (Again, as I understand from the little I have learned over the years).

Gunnar.

Rich is on the money re the MK2S being too crispy for choral music. The MK21 pair is a much better bet. But we have found the Royers best of all for choral. The SF24 is also a stunning vocal mic, especially on soprano.

As Gunnar points out correctly, the SF24 is only a tiny improvement on the SF12 for self noise, I estimate for ambient micing of chamber and choral, the difference ends up being about 2dBA on so.

But the SF24 sounds more solid in the lower mids that the SF12, so there is more than a marginal noise improvement in the price difference.

ghellquist wrote: Actually I think the problem may be the preamp.

G'day Gunnar. I wish it were the ULN2 that was noisy, then the AEA TRP would be the ticket. However, I AB'd the SF12 on both preamps, and the noise level was virtually identical. The only difference was that the TRP gave the sound a bit more body and depth (probably assisted by the whopping imput impedance). Those ULN2's really are very quiet even at very high gain; and I'm not just saying that because I'm an owner.

Duckman wrote: There's an ebay listing for a mk2 pair of caps. Adding two new CMC6 bodies would make it around $3300, depending on the bidding.

Aah, that explains that...

Perhaps you could approached the local Royer importer, explain your situation, and ask if they would perhaps take a trade-in? I have no idea what their reaction would be, but it might be worth a try. A happy brand owner is always better than an unhappy brand owner...

ghellquist wrote: It would take a brave person to have an SF12 (same goes for SF24) as the single tool used for recording.

Either brave, or pigheadedly dogmatic. :wink:

The SF12 was my *only* microphone for about 18 months! I made some absolutely lovely recordings with it, but for every great recording I made three or four substandard ones. It took me a long time to admit that it wasn't the right tool for every job, because for some bizarre reason (probably inspired by listening to too much Water Lily, Chesky and Opus 3 recordings, all made with Blumlein) I had dogmatically aligned myself to the Blumlein technique and that was all there was to it.

What was I thinking?

ghellquist wrote: The difference in practical usage is that the SF24 has one stage of amplification optimized for the actual impedances and levels, and that most mic amplifiers at that impedances / gain requirements are rather far off their optimum.

Apart from the built-in amplification circuitry, the only difference between the SF12 and the SF24 is a re-designed transformer. If I remember correctly, it is the interface between the ribbon element and the built-in preamplifier. The SF12's transformer will always be the limiting factor for any custom-made preamplifier - as I found out. It was quite disappointing to spend so much time and money developing that thing, only to find that when the SF24 came out it generally sounded better all around (thanks to that re-designed transformer) - it was pulling sounds out of that ribbon that the SF12's transformer simply couldn't get at.

Doh!

Sonarerec wrote: Life is full of tradeoffs!

Re Mk21 trade-offs:

Can they be used with Jecklin for accurate imaging?

Would I be trading-off much low frequency in getting the Mk21 as opposed to true omnis?

Duckman wrote: Since however, this is a once only, 'desert Island' kind of purchase (ie, I won't be buying any other mics for a long time - budget restrictions etc), I am a little confused as to whether I might best be served by omni condensers as 'all round' microphones. I would also be recording guitar/folk music, and hopefully some early music instrumental stuff - lutes, viola da gamba etc. Problem is, I can't get rid of the idea that ribbons just sound better :-)

Ribbons sound very nice indeed. But please read my earlier post (a few messages up) about having a Blumlein ribbon pair as my only mic pair. If you're choosing your only pair of microphones, get ribbons and Blumlein out of your mind immediately!

If it's a desert island selection, I definitely agree with Gunnar's earlier suggestion: get a pair of cardioids. Considering the list of things you want to record (above), I think they will provide the most utility.

You can use a pair of cardioids in ORTF (and any other near-coincident configuration), and you can also use them in situations where it is more appropriate to close-mike two different sources at once.

But get *good* cardioids with good off-axis response and so on. I'm recommending either DPAs or Schoeps. Considering the list of things you want to record, I think you'll prefer the tonality of the Schoeps over the DPAs.

I regularly use a pair of Schoeps CCM4Lg miniature cardioid condensers in Schoep's handy little ORTF holder. A great sounding and elegant system that gives good results on everything and is outrageously quick to set up. (Poke the mics into the holder and voila! Instant ORTF!!). I can recommend this system to you with absolutely no reservations whatsoever. The small physical size of the mics makes them a breeze to work with, and they never dominate the scene (whether live or in session). To me, that's an important thing - the less the performers are aware of the recording rig and process, the better.

Also, I'd be sticking with plain old cardioid (not super or hyper or hypo), if it is your only mic pair. Omnis are cool, but I think in this situation you'll be better served with cardioids. (There's no point having lovely extended bottom end if you've got too much room sound and can't get your mics any closer...)

Simmosonic wrote:
If it's a desert island selection, I definitely agree with Gunnar's earlier suggestion: get a pair of cardioids. Considering the list of things you want to record (above), I think they will provide the most utility.

I should clarify: 90% of the time the desert island will be inhabited only by a small choral ensemble singing Renaissance polyphony and Greg chant (hoping to imitate the sound of groups like the Hillard Ensemble, Ensemble Organum etc), at least for the next year or two, and also me strumming made-up folk ditties on acoustic guitar. But the choir thing is THE thing for me, and I'm prepared to sacrifice quality in other applications in order to get the highest quality I can afford in this application. In general then (ie abstracting from other important elements like room quality), would that translate to omnis, or cardiods (with a bit of altiverb ambience assistance)?

BTW, thanks Simmo for the tempting description of the CCM4LG. I will definitely keep it in mind. It would save me some money too.

If choral is job #1 and you also need to record other things, then the MK2 or MK21 are your capsules, not MK4 (IMO). DISCLAIMER: I own and use the 4 and 21, but not the 2 (I have 2S and have owned 2H).

REASONS: MK4 LF rolloff and off-axis tonality-- something to consider gven your primary use in reverberant rooms. Don't know about your performing/recording venues, but I rarely encounter so much ambience that I must go to cardioids to tame it.

About your other MK21 questions-- I would not try to make them work with a Jecklin disc, and unless you are doing organ or bass drum concertos I doubt you would miss the LF. And they can be used spaced in reverberant rooms or a modified NOS (14 inches and 100 degrees) the rest of the time.

If you are considering the CCM series-- you will give up capsule interchangeability, a big plus with Schoeps. However, if low profile is important then they are the ticket (or use active cables for more $$).

Rich

Anyone vote for MG M296 over Mk21 for choral (I know Teddy does!).