Topic: HELP NEWBIE with MIC

[stevetoney]

Not exactly, I want to be able to record, the sounds as you say....but being able to monitor it via my Headphones, which the WM-D6C actually did,

Sorry for the sidetrack with my post above. 

Not to discount your desire, but you should realize that if you will be doing more music recording than ambient sound recording, you'll most probably need to rely on your meters during recording. 

For nature sounds or soft sounds or soft music, you'll of course be able to listen through headphones to hear what's being recorded.  But with music, I've never been able to get enough sound isolation in my headphones, even with lots of headphones amplification, to be able to really differentiate what's coming through the headphones very well from what's being played in the room. 

The exception to this is the headphone amp on a Sound Devices 702/722/744/788 recorder.  On these, first the headphone amp provides alot of high quality amplification, but more importantly, you can selectively have the headphone signal delayed some amount (user selected time delay) so that you can actually hear the delayed signal to differentiate it from the room music.

[mfrench]

I pretty much use my Sony cans, unplugged, as ear protection, *anymore :)

*that is unless I'm setup in the side wings, onstage, with my mics in the sweet spot. That way I at least get to hear the show as its going on, even if I'm maybe only seeing it on a monitor.

[rayr0683]

Damn!!!  That is very creative.  And if you dont think so, as an onlooker, Im telling you so. I would never have thought of anything like that.  I really like the setup, and it is much more easier to take along with you, than I imagined from the original message you posted about this method.  I see how you can just grab that thing, and set it up as you like, once you have it all built like that.  Very Nice work.  That is probably the recording patterns Id like. That thing blows my mind, I wasn't expecting anything quite like that.  I imagined the mic's seperated by that professional accoustical foam squares, that are real expensive, but didn't visualize it all secured, Id love to hear the sounds you get from that.  Ray

I'd suggesed Church Audio.
Chris builds mics in different pickup patterns, cardioid, and omnidirectional.
Cardioid is a hemispherical pickup pattern. Omnis are an orb, or 360º pickup pattern.
With cards, you depend on spacing, and microphone axis offsets to get stereo imaging.
With omnis, you get imaging via spacing or baffling. Baffling the mics keeps them closer together, which helps control time phasing issues of the signal arriving at two spaced mics at different times - the baffle adds coherency because the time delay is far less than with spaced mics.

These stereo patterns are why you don't want an inexpensive single point stereo mic, as the multiple patterns are so much more functional; and it makes the single point stereo mic very limiting.

You suggest that setting up a baffle might be difficult.
Not at all.
This is my own version of the Jecklin Disc / OSS technique (Optimum Stereo Signal). Around here, we call them j-discs, because they very from the extremely stringent parameters of the OSS technique.





At any rate,... this baffle is 8" diamater, made from a plastic embroidery hoop, scrap foam, and a few hardware store bits. The spreader bar is a piece of dowel and the mic clips are pencil erasers. Cheap, and extremely functional.

[Shadow_7]

I pretty much use my Sony cans, unplugged, as ear protection, *anymore

Same here.  Most times the source is too loud to differentiate from the cans anyway.  Although still useful to tell if the radio tower is getting picked up in the lulls.

-----

In my case we're talking OLD 1/4" tapes.  Older than I am, and I'm encroaching on 40.  The kind used for musak on overseas flights back in the 60's.  RCA out to 3.5mm plug into an M-Audio Mobile Pre via USB to a laptop.  Any one of those things could be just as susceptible IMO.  Although I've never had much issue from non tape player sources.  GSM handshakes abound from the tape player.  Very old nicotine covered boxes with wooden shells.  Sony something -355 ?  Getting new carpet so everything is in shambles right now.  Painting too.  The stereo echos the handshake too, but not relevent to the tape player as there is no mic per say.  As I become dismayed at how many tunes are songs I played all through high school and college and most aren't even the original artists.  And most predate my birth.  I feel so old...

[rayr0683]

I happened to buy a box of 10 inch 2 track tapes from an Airline, maybe American Airlines, and they are 2 track tapes, with a paper inside, listing all the songs, and the time of each song. They are not original artists, and are mainly all 1970's hit songs, either instrumental or some NoName singing them.  But I tell you what....these tapes still sound extremely clean, no dropouts, no static, no distortion.....all of my tapes, cassette and Open Reel, are all sounding as good as the day they were made.  All the ones I made, were made on very good decks, that all had been restored to factory specs. or better. And I took good care of them. The only tapes I have had problems with, were 1980's era Ampex 456, which had something called Sticky Shed Syndrome....the binding of the tapes gummed up, and would end up all over the heads, and entire tape path, eventually stopping the machine. They say you have to bake them, or dehydrate them, in order to get a final play from them, to transfer them over to another source. Then toss them, they are worthless.  Ray

I pretty much use my Sony cans, unplugged, as ear protection, *anymore

Same here.  Most times the source is too loud to differentiate from the cans anyway.  Although still useful to tell if the radio tower is getting picked up in the lulls.

-----

In my case we're talking OLD 1/4" tapes.  Older than I am, and I'm encroaching on 40.  The kind used for musak on overseas flights back in the 60's.  RCA out to 3.5mm plug into an M-Audio Mobile Pre via USB to a laptop.  Any one of those things could be just as susceptible IMO.  Although I've never had much issue from non tape player sources.  GSM handshakes abound from the tape player.  Very old nicotine covered boxes with wooden shells.  Sony something -355 ?  Getting new carpet so everything is in shambles right now.  Painting too.  The stereo echos the handshake too, but not relevent to the tape player as there is no mic per say.  As I become dismayed at how many tunes are songs I played all through high school and college and most aren't even the original artists.  And most predate my birth.  I feel so old...

[mfrench]

Ray,

I've experimented extensively with baffled omnis for a long time now.  I've only modified a technique that was created by Jurg Jecklin - Jecklin Disc.  His technique has extremely stringent and unbending parameters, requiring a 12" disc, and a particular type of omnidirectional microphone.  So I went about seeing how far I could push those parameters, starting in the mid 80's with an artificial head binaural stereo microphone kit.
 I eventually moved towards the baffles as a means of replacing the head, while still maintaining the qualities that it gave me, especially as I evolved away from true binaural, and moved towards a quasi-binural, baffled omnis study.

In the pictures below, you'll see true binaural, quasi-binural (Head Reference Transfer Function, HRTF), and various experiments with baffling omnis with a variety of different baffle sizes and shapes.
You've already seen the 8" round baffle, here are some other forms of baffling
All of these techniques would require omnidirectional mics:

GudeHead rigged *"true" Binaural (best played back via headphones, very realistic - not as good with speakers)

*rigged as sennheiser factory spec'd for binaural

GudeHead rigged HRTF - Head Reference Transfer Function, quasi-binaural.
This technique replays by speakers far better than true Binaural, yet still retains the qualities of binaural:


Large Diaphragm 15" square j-disc:


4" mini j-disc:

live use in arena, with another cardioid stereo rig:

[rayr0683]

Man.....you've really taken this to the limits.  I cant believe how many degrees of binaural there are.  Im sorry if I ask so many questions, and maybe dont seem to be fully understanding. But to me, it was just plugging a Mic, or Mic's into the input of my machine, and recording. I did figure that some Mic's were better, or more sensitive than others, but never imagined it could be so complex. It really confuses the hell outta me.  But I agree with what you've said a few posts back. When you said that after reading my incident, with my first walkman, with the Talk-Line that you figured Id like the binaural methods of recording.  Do you happen to know of an Engineer named Kermit Gray??  He id one of the more knowledgeable members of Naktalk, over at Naks.com, relating to Nakamichi Gear.

                Anyway, the other night, he sent me a personal email, and was telling me that I would really like Binaural Mic's for recording Nature/Ambient Sounds.  He also stated that Dynamic Mic's were great for very Loud Sounds, like Thunder Clapping, and that sort of thing, plus he said that Dynamic Mic's were extremely rugged, and can withstand the elements, for recording outdoors, and getting wet, etc.... But he daid that Binaural Mic's were so realistic, it was eery, chilling to listen to with headphones. And I guess your variations of that are even more so. That looks wild, seeing that you recorded actual performances, etc.... You really understand the concept.  So, from what you know of me, and what I have been saying that I like, and would like to achieve, what model Mic's would you suggest that I get?? I realize it may be hard to answer, but your best shot.  Thanks, Ray

Ray,

I've experimented extensively with baffled omnis for a long time now.  I've only modified a technique that was created by Jurg Jecklin - Jecklin Disc.  His technique has extremely stringent and unbending parameters, requiring a 12" disc, and a particular type of omnidirectional microphone.  So I went about seeing how far I could push those parameters, starting in the mid 80's with an artificial head binaural stereo microphone kit.
 I eventually moved towards the baffles as a means of replacing the head, while still maintaining the qualities that it gave me, especially as I evolved away from true binaural, and moved towards a quasi-binural, baffled omnis study.

In the pictures below, you'll see true binaural, quasi-binural (Head Reference Transfer Function, HRTF), and various experiments with baffling omnis with a variety of different baffle sizes and shapes.
You've already seen the 8" round baffle, here are some other forms of baffling
All of these techniques would require omnidirectional mics:

GudeHead rigged *"true" Binaural (best played back via headphones, very realistic - not as good with speakers)

*rigged as sennheiser factory spec'd for binaural

GudeHead rigged HRTF - Head Reference Transfer Function, quasi-binaural.
This technique replays by speakers far better than true Binaural, yet still retains the qualities of binaural:


Large Diaphragm 15" square j-disc:


4" mini j-disc:

live use in arena, with another cardioid stereo rig:

[splumer]

Hello,
      So you used the Shure Mic's with your Sony?  Those are dynamic mic's right?  Did you ever notice if you were able to monitor sound to be recorded through your headphones? Also, did you only use the Line In on your Sony? Or did you use the Mic Input?  I didn't know all of the Sony Pro Walkman Recorders had Line Inputs. I knew the D6, D6C, and TC-5 had Line In's....didn't know if the WM-D3 had Line Inputs.

Yes, the SM57 is a dynamic instrument mic, often used to mic cymbals. The dynamic range is nice and wide, and the frequency response throughout the range is what I would consider acceptable. They also can take a hell of a beating without ill effects. They're not Schoeps or Neumann, but they've served me well while I save for something better.

The D3 has a Line In, but I always used the Mic In. The line matching transformers just changed the balanced output of the mics to an unbalanced one for the mic input. Then I had adapters to change the 1/4" plugs to RCA, then into a true stereo Y-cable. You can monitor with headphones, but without the third playback head, you're just listening to a patch and not what's actually been recorded. Unfortunately, none of my stuff on the LMA is from cassette. I used my D3 for a couple years, then went to MD and then to a PMD660 when I was able to get one cheap through work. But I will always have soft spot for the D3: virtually indestructible you never lose a recording because of a firmware error or some other nonsense, and cassette is a lot more forgiving with overload distortion.

I don't miss the tape flip, though. My watch's stopwatch came in handy.

[mfrench]

Man.....you've really taken this to the limits.  I cant believe how many degrees of binaural there are.  Im sorry if I ask so many questions, and maybe dont seem to be fully understanding. But to me, it was just plugging a Mic, or Mic's into the input of my machine, and recording. I did figure that some Mic's were better, or more sensitive than others, but never imagined it could be so complex. It really confuses the hell outta me.  But I agree with what you've said a few posts back. When you said that after reading my incident, with my first walkman, with the Talk-Line that you figured Id like the binaural methods of recording.  Do you happen to know of an Engineer named Kermit Gray??  He id one of the more knowledgeable members of Naktalk, over at Naks.com, relating to Nakamichi Gear.

I've really only expanded on a few techniques that have been around for a long time. In that, I proved to myself that things really are not so stringent and difficult as the white papers say it should be.
It really confuses the hell out of me
Don't let it confuse you.  I know its a tough call, but trust us on this - you won't be led astray.

Stereo recording essentially depends on two things: signal impulse amplitude and signal impulse arrival timing; amplitude/attenuation, and timing.

With omnidirectional mics (they're omnis, not binaurals) you have two orbs that pickup at a 360º pattern.
You can essentially do two things to create stereo imaging with them:
1- You can space them apart, usually no less than 3' to get some signal attenuation between the mics.  This also introduces timing difference cues.
The problem with the timing arrival cues is that they can offset with each mic, and create timing phasiness or smudging.
2- You can keep them closer together and place a baffle between them.
The baffle creates attenuation between mics that replicates the amplitude differences that you get by spacing the mics. This attenuation is as much as 6dB between mics.  The baffle allows the mics to be drawn together in spacing, which eliminates the timing phase issues.
The baffle makes it more foolproof.

Kermit Gray
I do not know him, but, this place is it for me pretty much. I frequent this forum and a turntablist forum, and thats pretty much it for my internet socializing.

 

              Anyway, the other night, he sent me a personal email, and was telling me that I would really like Binaural Mic's for recording Nature/Ambient Sounds.  He also stated that Dynamic Mic's were great for very Loud Sounds, like Thunder Clapping, and that sort of thing, plus he said that Dynamic Mic's were extremely rugged, and can withstand the elements, for recording outdoors, and getting wet, etc.... But he daid that Binaural Mic's were so realistic, it was eery, chilling to listen to with headphones. And I guess your variations of that are even more so. That looks wild, seeing that you recorded actual performances, etc.... You really understand the concept.  So, from what you know of me, and what I have been saying that I like, and would like to achieve, what model Mic's would you suggest that I get?? I realize it may be hard to answer, but your best shot.  Thanks, Ray

Binaural Mics
Binaural is a technique and not a product. It is one that utilizes omni mics and a baffle. Companies that sell "Binaural" mics are selling an improperly named product as a gimmick.
You don't necessarily want to record in true binaural either.  The playback via speakers isn't as good as other omni techniques, the quasi-binaural techniques.
So, its best to get away from discussing binaural, as its somewhat confusing; preferring instead, using the baffled omnis terminology.

Dynamic mics are good for loud sharp impulses - and yes, they can be used as hammers (in jest). But they're far from sensitive, and most have frequency response curves that compliment the human voice, and not so much for music. They can, and have been used successfully, but most of us have moved towards condensor mics.

He is correct that the baffled omni techniques are shockingly real.

Wet conditions:
Some mics handle this better than others.  The mics that I've shown on the furry disc baffle, the small black ones, DPA 406x series, can be immersed and swizzled in a glass of distilled water for cleaning them out.
Generally speaking, you want to protect your gear in wet conditions.

You ask for my best shot in mics.
Well, I'm a DPA guy. But the costs of DPA will set you back on your heels. The miniature mics and power/preamp will be in excess of $1200 - this step kills the upgrade bug virus that is so contagious around here.
As I've suggested already - A Church Audio system would serve you very well, and, would keep you below the $500 mark, and possibly well below it (I have not priced his gear lately).

[stevetoney]

I used my D3 for a couple years, then went to MD and then to a PMD660 when I was able to get one cheap through work. But I will always have soft spot for the D3: virtually indestructible you never lose a recording because of a firmware error or some other nonsense, and cassette is a lot more forgiving with overload distortion.

The portion in bold may be true as compared to 16bit recording, say through a PMD-660, but I doubt this statement is true if recording in 24bit resolution.  I know the OP said that he's not into digital, but just wanted to point this out.

Also, in terms of recording reliability, I trust my digital recorders alot more than I ever trusted a cassette based system.  There are virtually no moving parts in my digital recorders and, while there are at times isolated instances of software bugs, I've personally experienced very few lost recordings for that reason as compared to the mechanical failures (broken belts...binding tape...binding capstans) that I experienced when using tape...not to mention that digital technology minimizes/eliminates tape flips, music gaps and wow/flutter.

I respect people that choose to continue to value the benefits of analog cassette tape, but personally I'm NEVER and I mean NEVER turning back.

(PS:  I've got about 1000 lightly used, once recorded onto, Maxell XLII's...anybody wanna buy 'em for cheap?)

[rayr0683]

Tonedeaf,
                      Just because Im not real into digital, I am by no means wanting to put it down. Sometimes I react to an action, or some kind of sarcasm about Tape being Ancient or Dinosaur like.  but I agree with what was just said. If you were getting married, would you trust a DVD Recording Camcorder??? I have never personally had a bad result with Tape, in audio or video. But so many DVD's and CD's that I have made, or bought, have had glitches...or pixelated...etc...that would be too risky for me to trust a once in a lifetime thing, such as wedding, birth of child, etc...Id rather tape first, then make a Digital Copy of either Audio or Video.

                Another thing....My Akai GX-747 DBX Reel to Reel, which is fully restored and mods performed that have been learned through the years...and the features of the search, go to....return to zero....etc... is first rate. The Computer on this Open Reeel tape deck is so precise its amazing. I dont even see these features on much of the digital equipment today. Also, the Dynamic Range of this Akai GX-747 DBX is 128, a dynamic range of 128, thats amazing for analog....I think its better than digital. So, its not like tape is some old dinosaur....these open reel decks are still made today...and many of the classics, especially by TEAC, full of feature, and great performers, were made right up into the late 1990's...Ray







T

I used my D3 for a couple years, then went to MD and then to a PMD660 when I was able to get one cheap through work. But I will always have soft spot for the D3: virtually indestructible you never lose a recording because of a firmware error or some other nonsense, and cassette is a lot more forgiving with overload distortion.

The portion in bold may be true as compared to 16bit recording, say through a PMD-660, but I doubt this statement is true if recording in 24bit resolution.  I know the OP said that he's not into digital, but just wanted to point this out.

[stevetoney]

Tonedeaf,
                      Just because Im not real into digital, I am by no means wanting to put it down.

Ray...perhaps you misinterpreted my words.  Notwithstanding my penchant for bringing levity into most of my posts, I wasn't putting down tape as being a dinosaur...in fact, as I stated in my post, I respect that you and others are staying with tape. 

My point was merely to compare and contrast some statements that I thought were worthwhile to point out for the sake of discussion, as related to digital recorders vs. analog recorder...and the reasons why I prefer digital. 

While I prefer digital audio recording technology, I fully respect that you and others prefer analog and acknowledge the issues with digital that you point out.

Steve

[rayr0683]

Tonedeaf,
              I understand that your not putting down, and I didnt take it that way.  I meant that sometimes I do take it that way, from people who really mean it that way, not you.  I just am skeptical, due to problems of shows that I recorded with a very expensive Panasonic DVR....and tried various different brands of Discs, and ended up withpixelation problems at times, or a disc that would not play, in some of my other players, and said disc error.

               BTW, the Place that does still repair, and refurbish Sony WM-D6C, and did mine not too long ago, still has parts on hand, etc....I contacted him regarding another tuneup of the D6C....and he asked if Id be interested in a Marantz CDR-300. He said they are $825.00 units, but he has about 8 new ones left, that he is selling for $325.00 shipped, asking if I was interested in one, rather than continuing on with my D6C.  I dont know if thats really a great price, or how good the unit is. But he speaks very highly of the Marantz units.  Ever heard of them? Or know anyone that has had one?  Just something I was kicking around in my head, since he brought it up to me.  Thanks, Ray

Tonedeaf,
                      Just because Im not real into digital, I am by no means wanting to put it down.

Ray...perhaps you misinterpreted my words.  Notwithstanding my penchant for bringing levity into most of my posts, I wasn't putting down tape as being a dinosaur...in fact, as I stated in my post, I respect that you and others are staying with tape. 

My point was merely to compare and contrast some statements that I thought were worthwhile to point out for the sake of discussion, as related to digital recorders vs. analog recorder...and the reasons why I prefer digital. 

While I prefer digital audio recording technology, I fully respect that you and others prefer analog and acknowledge the issues with digital that you point out.

Steve

[Shadow_7]

I've experimented extensively with baffled omnis for a long time now.  I've only modified a technique that was created by Jurg Jecklin - Jecklin Disc.  His technique has extremely stringent and unbending parameters, requiring a 12" disc, and a particular type of omnidirectional microphone.  So I went about seeing how far I could push those parameters, starting in the mid 80's with an artificial head binaural stereo microphone kit.
 I eventually moved towards the baffles as a means of replacing the head, while still maintaining the qualities that it gave me, especially as I evolved away from true binaural, and moved towards a quasi-binural, baffled omnis study.

In addition to the Jecklin disc, there's a Schneider disc.  A rounded bump in the middle, instead of just a flat disc.  Not that I'll ever use these things much myself.  I tend to favor outdoor style recording.  And with wind issues having a 12" kite is not desired.  Plus other live concert issues where a mic stand is offensive enough, throw in a fuzzy billboard on top and ticket sales quickly become more important than recording the event.  Even if it's just perceived ticket sales, and not actual ticket sales.

As far as tape, I prefer digital.  Most playback systems these days use digital media.  And with SACD and DSD options, what used to set tape apart from the rest is not as dramatic as it once was.  And once you have a digital version, copies are easy to make, and degredation is no longer an issue.  Perfect copies every time (depending on the delivery medium anyway).  Tape is also problematic in humid conditions.  And because there are moving parts, that motor noise becomes part of the recording in some cases.  And with 1TB HDDs being < $100, you can't even justify tape based on costs anymore.

[splumer]

I agree, but with my PMD660 (which I've only been using about a year) there's always this tiny voice in the back of my mind wondering if the recording will take. With cassette, I knew that as long as the meter was going, there was going to be something there. An example: Years ago I was fixing my grandmother's garage roof and found one of the local urchins had tossed a porn VHS up there. Why? Dunno, but I popped it in my VCR at home and it played! Not well, but it played. No digital medium is that robust.

But, having said all that, I still love solid state recorders, and would never go back.

I used my D3 for a couple years, then went to MD and then to a PMD660 when I was able to get one cheap through work. But I will always have soft spot for the D3: virtually indestructible you never lose a recording because of a firmware error or some other nonsense, and cassette is a lot more forgiving with overload distortion.

The portion in bold may be true as compared to 16bit recording, say through a PMD-660, but I doubt this statement is true if recording in 24bit resolution.  I know the OP said that he's not into digital, but just wanted to point this out.

Also, in terms of recording reliability, I trust my digital recorders alot more than I ever trusted a cassette based system.  There are virtually no moving parts in my digital recorders and, while there are at times isolated instances of software bugs, I've personally experienced very few lost recordings for that reason as compared to the mechanical failures (broken belts...binding tape...binding capstans) that I experienced when using tape...not to mention that digital technology minimizes/eliminates tape flips, music gaps and wow/flutter.

I respect people that choose to continue to value the benefits of analog cassette tape, but personally I'm NEVER and I mean NEVER turning back.

(PS:  I've got about 1000 lightly used, once recorded onto, Maxell XLII's...anybody wanna buy 'em for cheap?)