Author Topic: Stealth MICs that are good enough for Reg. Use? (Read 13090 times)

timP · « **on:** December 06, 2003, 07:02:46 PM »

hello and thanks for the help so far... settling towards the Nomad as my recordering choice, with a DENECKE AD-20 pre-amp,
and was wondering, in all of the many differnet mini mics available, are there any that you would feel good using to record any rock show?
I want to get a stealh set for some shows, but was hoping to get a set I could put up a stand and get a quality recording.. Thanks

jpschust · « **Reply #1 on:** December 06, 2003, 08:10:50 PM »

lots of stealth mics are good for regular use, what is your price range?

timP · « **Reply #2 on:** December 06, 2003, 08:44:34 PM »

i'm willing to pay for what is needed you might say..
i see mics for 800 and mics for 250....just don't know...

John Kelly · « **Reply #3 on:** December 06, 2003, 09:04:51 PM »

I run at933s on a stand, and I think they're great. Gonna stealth with them in about two weeks as well.

rockumal · « **Reply #4 on:** December 07, 2003, 12:38:37 AM »

I've never used the 933's but I've got some very respectable 853r (actual AT brand) tapes.

Sean Gallemore · « **Reply #5 on:** December 07, 2003, 05:46:44 AM »

people run all sorts of stealthable mics:
AT831, AT853, AT933, etc.
DPA 402X, 406X
schoeps actives
neumann actives
audix micros
~~adk tl's~~

all of these would produce quality sound, but you get what you pay for

timP · « **Reply #6 on:** December 07, 2003, 11:28:53 AM »

THANKS...............

now for the research

Where's MY MULE?

super-phat-al · « **Reply #7 on:** December 07, 2003, 01:21:33 PM »

Quote from: John Kelly on December 06, 2003, 09:04:51 PM

I run at933s on a stand, and I think they're great. Gonna stealth with them in about two weeks as well.

i can say that i have heard some wonderful tapes with these mics.

John Kelly · « **Reply #8 on:** December 07, 2003, 02:38:34 PM »

Quote from: superphatal on December 07, 2003, 01:21:33 PM

Quote from: John Kelly on December 06, 2003, 09:04:51 PM
I run at933s on a stand, and I think they're great. Gonna stealth with them in about two weeks as well.
i can say that i have heard some wonderful tapes with these mics.

Probably not from me, though.

super-phat-al · « **Reply #9 on:** December 07, 2003, 03:03:58 PM »

Quote from: John Kelly on December 07, 2003, 02:38:34 PM

Quote from: superphatal on December 07, 2003, 01:21:33 PM
Quote from: John Kelly on December 06, 2003, 09:04:51 PM
I run at933s on a stand, and I think they're great. Gonna stealth with them in about two weeks as well.
i can say that i have heard some wonderful tapes with these mics.

Probably not from me, though.

i haven't heard any of your tapes yet, but i have some of kevin davis' tapes. Im sure your tapes rock too. Do you think you could hook me up with that ftp login for some carbon leaf? I know its been awhile but id like to get really familiar with their stuff before i see them on the 26th. Thanks

John Kelly · « **Reply #10 on:** December 07, 2003, 03:16:32 PM »

My ftp is shut down for now. In fact, the hard drive that holds all the CL shows (like 150 gigs now) is not even in the computer.

The Archive seems to have a pretty fat pipe lately. I think every show I've taped is up there (1/25/03 is a pretty nice tape of mine).

BTW, you taping on the 26th? I'll probably see ya there.

timP · « **Reply #11 on:** December 07, 2003, 11:58:43 PM »

if you guys had 500-700 to spend on mics that you could stealth with, and run reg, what would they be....
I'll dig on ebay and see what I can find...

not to be to invasive, but are you guys talking about the BAltimre CL shows? you guys from around Balt?
Just a lifelong resident, and interested in any advice about recording local venues...soory to chang thread topics...

John Kelly · « **Reply #12 on:** December 08, 2003, 01:54:00 AM »

Between 500-600? Not really sure. Most people would probably say a pair of DPA 4060s, but I prefer having directional mics... I'd probably go with the at933s that I currently have and spend a little more on the pre/recorder.

As for the CL shows, yep, I'll be at the Baltimore shows. As well as the Virginia shows, and maybe the Raleigh show.

Pulled first row for the show in Richmond.

Sean Gallemore · « **Reply #13 on:** December 08, 2003, 04:43:19 AM »

i agree with Mr. Kelly, directional mics will be more versatile for you

timP · « **Reply #14 on:** December 08, 2003, 11:06:09 AM »

looking for the AT933's... many other types of Audio Technica mics, but no 933's ...
found 1 pic,and they look just right..

edit: on AT's site found 'em, they are the ES933's right? WHich variety y'all use?
Where did you purchase those mics?

thanks for the newbie love..........

Sean Gallemore · « **Reply #15 on:** December 08, 2003, 04:53:08 PM »

should be AT933...

Cooker · « **Reply #16 on:** December 08, 2003, 04:55:24 PM »

spreadahead, checking in from Canton on the east side here.

i think you might want to check out the new audix micros, they have two versions, very small mics with amazingly good sound for less than you are looking to spend. otherwise, if you can make the jump to DPA 406x series, they are totally respectable mics but you are going to be stuck with omnis.

if you are willing to make the jump to full body mics, you will have great success with the AKG 391s, but keep in mind they will require phantom power that the AD-20 will not provide, you will need a ps-2 or some other phantom power device.

John Kelly · « **Reply #17 on:** December 08, 2003, 05:34:58 PM »

The at933's you can get from SoundPros (http://www.soundprofessionals.com), they stock them as the SP-CMC-8, premium slimline mics. If you'd rather have an XLR connector, you can get the at933r's, but I'm not sure where you can actually purchase them from.

I have the SoundPro version and they are great.

Sean Gallemore · « **Reply #18 on:** December 08, 2003, 06:16:34 PM »

Sonic Sense says they carry AT products
at the bottom of this page is where this is stated.

John Kelly · « **Reply #19 on:** December 08, 2003, 11:20:55 PM »

Word. Sonic Sense for the at933r's then

timP · « **Reply #20 on:** December 09, 2003, 12:21:51 AM »

can you explain the difference between having and not having an XLR conector.. the reg 933's seem to have a basic mic plug. The 933r is diff?
Thanks

Sean Gallemore · « **Reply #21 on:** December 09, 2003, 06:32:55 AM »

john - i couldn't find AT933 on the AT website. Are these the mics you have?

these mics terminate in an xlr plug that connects to a phantom power source that provides 9-52V phantom power. Many preamps provide this power requirement.

If the mics were to terminate into a single 1/8" stereo mini plug, this would most likely be a set of mics furnished from Sound Professionals in which case you would need to buy one of their battery boxes to properly power the mics

leegeddy · « **Reply #22 on:** December 09, 2003, 07:18:10 AM »

Quote from: Schwillis on December 09, 2003, 06:32:55 AM

john - i couldn't find AT933 on the AT website. Are these the mics you have?

these mics terminate in an xlr plug that connects to a phantom power source that provides 9-52V phantom power. Many preamps provide this power requirement.

If the mics were to terminate into a single 1/8" stereo mini plug, this would most likely be a set of mics furnished from Sound Professionals in which case you would need to buy one of their battery boxes to properly power the mics

the (real) AT933 is a discontinued AT line just like the AT943. the ES is their brand new line. Sound Professional basically purchases bulk AT capsules and put together their own line of SP mics. the capsules are AT, but the wiring/battbox/preamp/etc. are all SP made.

as Schwillis noted, if you have a set of "AT" mic that terminate into a 1/8" mini, then it's from SP (unless someone modified an AT).

marc

Sean Gallemore · « **Reply #23 on:** December 09, 2003, 07:28:08 AM »

thanx for slearing that up! I was confuzzled for a bit

Nick's Picks · « **Reply #24 on:** December 10, 2003, 08:06:02 AM »

IMO, i'd be all over a pair of those Audix Micros.
a nice set of the hypers would do just fine...and Doug Oade said that they are surprisingly sweet sounding little mics for the money.
fwiw...

MATTZS · « **Reply #25 on:** December 21, 2003, 08:52:33 PM »

I’m seriously considering getting some Audix Micros. Please if you could answer a couple of newbie questions. They come with a 12’ cord with a mini xlr plug. Can they be altered? Shorter cord, 1/8” mini, to go into a NJB3? It also say’s they have a built in preamp, but still require phantom power, that’s not a battery box correct? If not then what can I use? I want them for stealth apps so less is critical. Any help would be great, thanks
Matt

m1245-hc

zhianosatch · « **Reply #26 on:** December 21, 2003, 11:23:54 PM »

Don't f with the plug besides MAYBE shortening the cord - MAYBE. You can stealth a lot more than you think.
And you won't be running them into your JB3.

DaryanLenz · « **Reply #27 on:** December 22, 2003, 08:59:17 AM »

DPA 4071's, and audix micros are the ones I would get in that price range with the audix mics haveing a slightly bigger sound to my ears. I am not so sure about the ad-20, why not a ua-5 at that price or an mp-2?

D

MBHOTAPER · « **Reply #28 on:** December 22, 2003, 12:00:45 PM »

MBHO, Neuman, Schoeps and DPAs would be the more expensive but superior sound quality and performance. I have a preference for active cables for stealth options

MATTZS · « **Reply #29 on:** December 22, 2003, 04:38:36 PM »

could I just run the mics into this
then into a NJB3. the mics say they have a preamp.
M1290-HC>PS2>NJB3
Matt

King Crimson · « **Reply #30 on:** December 22, 2003, 06:24:39 PM »

goose · « **Reply #31 on:** December 22, 2003, 06:44:10 PM »

MATTZS: you said "the mics say they have a preamp"

FWIW - the "preamp" on those mics are really just bodies - they do not provide gain - they provide power to the interchangeable capsules. Same as AKG 480s are preamps (bodies) and capsules. If going mics -> ps2 -> jb3, you would be using the preamp and AD convertor of the jb3. But yes, I believe that would work, I am just not sure how well or if it'll work in all situations.

MATTZS · « **Reply #32 on:** December 22, 2003, 07:06:17 PM »

I would be using them in loud settings IE concerts, I don't think I need gain for that, do I?

zhianosatch · « **Reply #33 on:** December 22, 2003, 09:59:45 PM »

Yes, you do.

MATTZS · « **Reply #34 on:** December 23, 2003, 09:17:33 AM »

I do for the best sound, or I do for them to work at all? Why if I run at853's all I need is a battery box?

drumminj · « **Reply #35 on:** December 23, 2003, 03:14:55 PM »

If you run at853s the battery box provides 9V to the mics to power them. It does not amplify the signal at all(though it does allow them to handle higher SPL than without battery box). In most situations you're still going to want a preamp, though. The JB3 supposedly has one (though I've never seen any documentation saying the JB3 actually *uses* the analog gain stage as opposed to simply applying digital gain), and the 853's run pretty hot, so you can get away with not having a preamp in some cases. There are actually a few people running this way, but you'll be running low levels. Lower levels = fewer bits used to encode "real" audio in the signal = lesser quality.

When I first started I ran SP's version of at853s ->batt box -> analog preamp -> JB3. I think the internal A/D is decent.

J

plucks · « **Reply #36 on:** December 23, 2003, 04:38:03 PM »

I would have to say Audix mics are probably one of the best choices at mics that are affordable to most people and sound great in a variety of applications, stealth or not.
For stealthing, the Micros, which have been mentioned, are great. They are full body mics, but about the size of your pinky finger. You can get them in a variety of polar patterns as well. The low end frequency is not too bad either. The M1290s are more well rounded in that aspect than the M1245s.
The micros also work great for miking drums.
You can mount them onto custom shockmounts, or rig them with mic clips into a Schoeps A20 shockmount too. The M1245, the smaller of the 2 micros can definitly be mounted onto your glasses or in a cap with ease.

Any sample recordings of the M1290s I will be glad to provide.

Phil

MATTZS · « **Reply #37 on:** December 23, 2003, 09:25:53 PM »

so it looks like
m1245/m1290>ps2>ad20>jb3
is the way to go.
Hows the crotch factor with this setup? Seems like alot.
Matt

zhianosatch · « **Reply #38 on:** December 24, 2003, 02:29:39 AM »

Not a problem. The JB3 can be crotched but a lot of people get 'em in by passing them off as their mere mp3 players, didn't want to leave it in the car in this neighborhood, etc...

George · « **Reply #39 on:** December 24, 2003, 04:57:05 PM »

Quote from: drumminj on December 23, 2003, 03:14:55 PM

There are actually a few people running this way, but you'll be running low levels. Lower levels = fewer bits used to encode "real" audio in the signal = lesser quality.

Ok, shoot me now

Why are they fewer bits if i record at lower levels? I tend to record everything at lower levels and maybe raise (amplify) the volume a few db's with adobe audition. Just wondering.

The problem i had was i have a built in preamp with my soundpro battery box and when i used the gain i just wound up lowering the volume down so there wouldn't be any distortion.

Simp-Dawg · « **Reply #40 on:** December 24, 2003, 05:16:12 PM »

Quote from: gloco on December 24, 2003, 04:57:05 PM

Quote from: drumminj on December 23, 2003, 03:14:55 PM
There are actually a few people running this way, but you'll be running low levels. Lower levels = fewer bits used to encode "real" audio in the signal = lesser quality.

Ok, shoot me now

Why are they fewer bits if i record at lower levels? I tend to record everything at lower levels and maybe raise (amplify) the volume a few db's with adobe audition. Just wondering.

The problem i had was i have a built in preamp with my soundpro battery box and when i used the gain i just wound up lowering the volume down so there wouldn't be any distortion.

it's just that you have so much headroom recording at 16 bits, i think technically it is 96db. each bit represents 6 db. the more information (db) you give to the a/d chip the more bits are actually used. this is also why recording at 24bits allows a little more headroom when recording.
the a/d on your jb3 is not very good which is why you don't want to run your mics too hot with your setup. that's ok...but try to go as high as you can without hearing any negative effects on the recording. it's always better to capture that from the source instead of boosting it later.
also, i'd recommend, if you're not already, running the mics into the line in (instead of mic in) to eliminate the crappy pre-amp on the jb3 (from what i've read).

HTH

George · « **Reply #41 on:** December 24, 2003, 05:27:36 PM »

Quote from: Simp-Dawg on December 24, 2003, 05:16:12 PM

Quote from: gloco on December 24, 2003, 04:57:05 PM
Quote from: drumminj on December 23, 2003, 03:14:55 PM
There are actually a few people running this way, but you'll be running low levels. Lower levels = fewer bits used to encode "real" audio in the signal = lesser quality.

Ok, shoot me now

Why are they fewer bits if i record at lower levels? I tend to record everything at lower levels and maybe raise (amplify) the volume a few db's with adobe audition. Just wondering.

The problem i had was i have a built in preamp with my soundpro battery box and when i used the gain i just wound up lowering the volume down so there wouldn't be any distortion.

it's just that you have so much headroom recording at 16 bits, i think technically it is 96db. each bit represents 6 db. the more information (db) you give to the a/d chip the more bits are actually used. this is also why recording at 24bits allows a little more headroom when recording.
the a/d on your jb3 is not very good which is why you don't want to run your mics too hot with your setup. that's ok...but try to go as high as you can without hearing any negative effects on the recording. it's always better to capture that from the source instead of boosting it later.
also, i'd recommend, if you're not already, running the mics into the line in (instead of mic in) to eliminate the crappy pre-amp on the jb3 (from what i've read).

HTH

hey, thanks for the post! I'm actually using a M1 now and i always use the line in

Thanks for all the info though, i was wondering about something: What's the cut off typically for the level meter on a M1 when recording? I let the meters jump up to 12db and it came out fine....albeit a bit quiet.

zhianosatch · « **Reply #42 on:** December 24, 2003, 06:27:43 PM »

Push em to zero. All the way.

drumminj · « **Reply #43 on:** December 25, 2003, 02:01:24 PM »

Quote from: Simp-Dawg on December 24, 2003, 05:16:12 PM

the a/d on your jb3 is not very good which is why you don't want to run your mics too hot with your setup. that's ok...but try to go as high as you can without hearing any negative effects on the recording.

I'm confused here. I don't see how the quality of the A/D would have any relation to the levels you want to run....I can understand if the preamp isn't very good, and you want to be careful of brickwalling (thus don't run too hot). But if the A/D is of poor quality, isn't that going to be an issue at ALL levels - and simply in the conversion? The A/D's performance doesn't change as the level increases?

Just want to make sure there's not some nugget of knowledge I'm missing.

Honestly, I don't think the internal A/D is all that bad. I'll have to run the JB3 side-by-side with my UA-5 and make samples available some time....

MattD · « **Reply #44 on:** December 25, 2003, 11:12:38 PM »

Though this doesn't answer the question, an A/D's performance can change dependent on levels. The A/D I use is a 24-bit A/D that is optimized at whatever analog level = -6 dB digital (I think it's +18 dBu on that unit, but don't quote me on that).

drumminj · « **Reply #45 on:** December 26, 2003, 12:32:33 AM »

Do you (or anyone) know what it means to be "optimized"? I would think that it's performing some algorithm, in hardware, to make the conversion. Is it perhaps that it does the "cleanest" conversion, with the least noise, at a certain level?

dklein · « **Reply #46 on:** December 26, 2003, 01:34:00 AM »

Holy crap - this discussion is all over the place but I'll bite... (got time here at the in-laws farm on dialup

)

Preamp or not with JB3
If your mics have enough output (i.e. you don't need additional gain for your peaks to approach 0 dB), then you're good running line in. Battery boxes with the popular stealth mics usually just provide bias to the mic, not gain.

If you end up with mics that require 48v phantom, then you can choose between a pre with phantom or just straight phantom (again, only if the mic output is high enough).

JB3 mic-in vs. line-in
Line-in is the only option for music and the 12 dB gain is true analog and a better alternative to increasing amplitude digitally in post. See this for more:
http://ca.geocities.com/dkleined@rogers.com/audio/JB3analog/JB3_Analog_recording.htm

The a>d on the JB3 isn't very good
I think it's actually quite alright. I have a sample of a recent show where 2 of us took the same board feed - the JB3 and an M-1. I used +6dB of JB3 gain. I gotta listen again but I did some ABX testing and couldn't differentiate. The bigger issue with JB3 analog recording is the preamp section.

JB3 Analog pre
No phantom and it's definitely not the quietest but in my opinion, the larger issue is electrical interference from the hard drive. If you crank the gain on the pre, you will pick up noise as the hard drive writes - a high pitch buzz that lasts a half a second or so and comes in at alternating 5 second/10 second intervals. It's not real loud unless you boost amplitude again in post. I just stealthed a show with CSBs and the JB3 at +12 dB. Signal was so low I had to add another 20 dB in post and then, during the really quiet parts between songs, you can hear the hard drive noise.

I've run a higher sensitivity mic into the JB3 analog without the same problem - it's a combo of low sensitivity mic, and a quiet show that required lots of boost after the fact.

levels and bits
You get 6 dB per bit so if you're peaking at -12 dB on your M-1, you're really only creating a 14 bit recording

This describes the resolution (or detail). Instead of making use of any one of 65,536 possible values for each sample, you're reducing it to one of 16,384 values.
You can boost it later to occupy the higher values but you're basically just shifting the whole thing up, not adding detail. It will be most noticeable on quiet passages and decaying sounds.

levels and the a>d
I would think that all a>d chips perform best when provided with full range signal. The only thing I could come up with is perhaps how nasty it gets if it clips, but that's probably the analog front end getting used to tame the overs anyways...

George · « **Reply #47 on:** December 26, 2003, 08:14:48 AM »

Quote from: dklein on December 26, 2003, 01:34:00 AM

levels and bits
You get 6 dB per bit so if you're peaking at -12 dB on your M-1, you're really only creating a 14 bit recording
This describes the resolution (or detail). Instead of making use of any one of 65,536 possible values for each sample, you're reducing it to one of 16,384 values.
You can boost it later to occupy the higher values but you're basically just shifting the whole thing up, not adding detail. It will be most noticeable on quiet passages and decaying sounds.

Oh, whoa! Thanks for the great explanation. Now i know that i'll try peaking it a little higher when i tape some shows in January (Maiden baby!).

Author Topic: Stealth MICs that are good enough for Reg. Use? (Read 13090 times)

jpschust

DaryanLenz