Become a Site Supporter and Never see Ads again!

Author Topic: favorite pre to run behind schoeps  (Read 7505 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SonicSound

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1570
  • Gender: Male
Re: favorite pre to run behind schoeps
« Reply #15 on: August 29, 2007, 03:01:29 PM »
elvo nt222
SD: Schoeps  M222/NT222's & CMC6's - MK 41V's, 21's, 5's, 8's
LD: Microtech Gefell UM900's, Shure KSM44's
V3, 744t

Offline H₂O

  • Trade Count: (27)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 5295
  • Gender: Male
Re: favorite pre to run behind schoeps
« Reply #16 on: August 29, 2007, 03:53:33 PM »
CMCX > PSP-2
M222 > Elvo (no other pre does them justice) :)
Music can at the least least explain you and at the most expand you
LMA Recordings

List

Offline Kevin Straker

  • The Shogun of Easley
  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2315
  • Gender: Male
Re: favorite pre to run behind schoeps
« Reply #17 on: August 29, 2007, 04:29:06 PM »
I like my mk4>v3 setup. I also ran mk4>psp2>modsbm1 for a while with some really nice results.
People on ludes should not drive...
J. Spicoli

mk4,mk21>kc5>cmc6>V3>SD722

Offline used-to-tape-alot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: favorite pre to run behind schoeps
« Reply #18 on: August 29, 2007, 04:39:30 PM »
the CMXY4V/V2 combo worked well.  When I upgraded the Beyerdynamic MV100 to the V2 the sound improvement was noticeable.  I also think that there were some occasions (bassier/boomier venues)when running one of the V2's rolloff filters (typically I used 6dB/octave @50Hz, but I also played around with 12@50 and 6@75) was beneficial to the recording.  The vast majority of the time I didn't use a bass rolloff though as the low end of the 4V is slightly attenuated/rolled off anyways.

Offline jerryfreak

  • Trade Count: (12)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1650
  • I'm a llama! (taboot)
Re: favorite pre to run behind schoeps
« Reply #19 on: August 30, 2007, 12:18:37 AM »

Offline db

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1446
  • Gender: Male
  • i do not have a personal statement
Re: favorite pre to run behind schoeps
« Reply #20 on: August 30, 2007, 11:41:21 AM »
elvo nt222

too effin' heavy.

i'm now 4s > 744 and i do like it a lot. however there are circumstances where i really miss the 3d airiness of the mme... the splashy cymbals in particular. it's just too effin' heavy.
db

Offline SonicSound

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1570
  • Gender: Male
Re: favorite pre to run behind schoeps
« Reply #21 on: August 30, 2007, 01:20:11 PM »
elvo nt222
too effin' heavy.

You just have to bend your knees when lifting ;D
SD: Schoeps  M222/NT222's & CMC6's - MK 41V's, 21's, 5's, 8's
LD: Microtech Gefell UM900's, Shure KSM44's
V3, 744t

Offline DSatz

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (22)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 2372
  • Gender: Male
Re: favorite pre to run behind schoeps
« Reply #22 on: August 30, 2007, 11:48:59 PM »
With my Schoeps CMC 5-- microphones I most often use a Grace Lunatec V3 for two-track recording, or an RME QuadMic for three- or four-track. Occasionally, though, I use an outboard A/D converter and an FMR "Real Nice Preamp," a Sonosax SX-M2, or a dbx 760X modified by Jim Williams. When someone's giving me a ride to and from a recording I sometimes bring a Millennia Media HV-3B. Finally I use an M Audio DMP3 for bench testing, but I'm not sure it can withstand being knocked around for portable use--I had a DMP2 lose a channel just before a live concert recording (the only time I ever took it out of the house).

The thing is: Transformerless microphones such as Schoeps Colettes or CCMs (or the Neumann KM 100 or 180 or TLM series) have a very low output impedance which is primarily resistive in character. As a result they are relatively immune to the varying load impedances (input impedances) which various preamps provide. Thus they have a tendency to make most preamps sound rather alike, as long as the preamps themselves have flat frequency response and low distortion. My preamp choices are therefore able to be based on small size, reliability, freedom from overload, and low noise rather than different "sonic characteristics"--which simply don't seem to crop up in my preamps to anywhere near the degree that they seem to with some other people.

The main exception may be some preamps with input transformers that have a high voltage step-up ratio. Depending on how the secondary winding of the transformer is terminated, such preamps may have non-flat frequency response when driven by a source impedance much different from whatever value they were designed for. This type of input circuit isn't common any more (especially in the type of lightweight, portable equipment that folks here use), but it does exist; an example is John Hardy's magnificent M1 and M2 preamps. (The M2 has an optional switch to compensate for microphones with a very low output impedance such as modern transformerless microphones generally have.)

Note that some people misconstrue this situation and insist that their higher-impedance, transformer-equipped microphones are actually superior because they can evince audible differences among more preamps. What's really happening is that audibly distinct, frequency-selective losses are occurring as a result of the failure to meet the necessary condition for a bridging load: The load impedance must be at least five (preferably at least ten) times the driving impedance across the entire frequency range of the signals. This problem can be avoided even in most transformer-equipped microphones by setting them to their lowest output impedance setting--generally 50 Ohms. In that setting they don't get loaded down as easily by preamps, and they're better able to drive long cables and/or cables (such as some Star-Quad cables) which have very high capacitance, without incurring audible high-frequency losses or other circuit misbehaviors.

--best regards
« Last Edit: August 31, 2007, 12:02:35 AM by DSatz »
music > microphones > a recorder of some sort

Offline db

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1446
  • Gender: Male
  • i do not have a personal statement
Re: favorite pre to run behind schoeps
« Reply #23 on: August 31, 2007, 12:16:18 AM »
elvo nt222
too effin' heavy.

You just have to bend your knees when lifting ;D


huh? my knees?  you need a lil red wagon.
db

Offline PH

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 673
  • Gender: Male
  • can you fix it in the mix?
Re: favorite pre to run behind schoeps
« Reply #24 on: August 31, 2007, 12:56:08 AM »
Satz, what sort of characteristics would the John Hardy pre's bring with the low impedence mics, that the others (V3) would not?
I find it interesting that you mention they behave in a very similar way with various pre's. I understand the principle of why that would be true, but just have not necessarily found that to be the case with the various pres I use on a regular basis. (API 3124+, Great River, V3, Presonus) They all have very different textures when I use the Schoeps with them. I guess I'm wanting you to go into more detail as to why you feel you get the same sort of response with most pres.
Thanks, Phil


Offline DSatz

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (22)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 2372
  • Gender: Male
Re: favorite pre to run behind schoeps
« Reply #25 on: September 02, 2007, 03:51:53 PM »
Phil, I don't mean to say that all preamps necessarily sound alike, but only that the low output impedance of the CMC series amplifiers tends to remove one prominent cause of different sound with different preamps.

I'm looking for, but not finding at the moment, an impedance chart which was drawn a few years back by a friend of mine, based on measurements of a high-quality, U.S.-made figure-8 ribbon microphone. The microphone's output impedance is 300 Ohms throughout most of the audio band, but near its resonant frequency (between 50 and 90 Hz, depending on the individual sample), the output impedance shoots up to a value well above 1000 Ohms--literally "off the chart." If I can find this piece of paper soon, I'll scan it and attach it here.

What Ohm's Law says about such a microphone, when you plug it into a preamp with an input impedance of (say) 1000 Ohms, is that around the resonant frequency, more than half the signal will be dropped across the microphone's own output impedance, and will never reach the preamp. That means the response around the resonant frequency will be down more than 6 dB below where the published curves say it should be. Even a preamp with 2 kOhm input impedance would load down this microphone and cause an audible decrease in its low-frequency response, as compared with the essentially unloaded state in which a microphone's frequency response is normally measured.

This isn't the only possible reason for different preamps to sound different from one another, but it is a big one--and using microphones with low, non-reactive output impedance tends to reduce or eliminate it in general.

As for as an input architecture like that of the John Hardy preamps, running a 30-Ohm microphone into it will simply tip the top octave response up or down a little--I forget which, actually. It's not a large number in terms of dB; there's no risk of parasitics or oscillation. But the response will simply be flatter at the top if you throw the "Lo-Z" switch which is optionally available on the Hardy M2.

--best regards
« Last Edit: September 03, 2007, 08:51:04 PM by DSatz »
music > microphones > a recorder of some sort

Offline kennedy

  • Trade Count: (13)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3714
  • Gender: Male
Re: favorite pre to run behind schoeps
« Reply #26 on: September 02, 2007, 07:30:09 PM »

Offline Nick Graham

  • Amorican
  • Trade Count: (3)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • Posts: 4076
  • Gender: Male
Re: favorite pre to run behind schoeps
« Reply #27 on: September 02, 2007, 08:59:35 PM »
Sonosax
Right now nothing...in the past: Schoeps CMC6, AKG 480, AKG 460, AKG 414, MBHO 603a, Neumann KM100, ADK TL>Schoeps MK4, Schoeps MK2, Schoeps MK41, AKG ck61, AKG ck62, AKG ck63, Neumann AK40, Neumann AK50, MBHO ka200>Lunatec V2, Lunatec V3, Apogee Mini-Me, Oade M148, Oade M248, Sound Devices MP2, Sonosax SXM2>Sony (mod)SBM1, Apogee AD500>D7, D8, D100, M1, R1, R4, R09, iRiver HP120, Microtrack

Offline monochromic

  • Trade Count: (3)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 373
  • Gender: Male
Re: favorite pre to run behind schoeps
« Reply #28 on: September 02, 2007, 11:00:02 PM »
I've run a Sonosax, V3 and my current Portico and for mine, the Portico is the winner.
Team Australia
Schoeps MK41/KC5/CMC6xt > Neve Portico 5012 > 722

Offline F.O.Bean

  • Is a 4 channel slut and
  • Trade Count: (121)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 40568
  • Gender: Male
  • Taperus Maximus
Re: favorite pre to run behind schoeps
« Reply #29 on: September 03, 2007, 12:30:04 AM »
i always liked the v2/sonosax with the many Phish recordings with those combos. But i like the schoeps>7xx better than schoeps>v3 fo sure. much more up front and in-your-face presence with the 722. the v3 sounds a bit duller and less detailed than the schoeps>722 believe it or not. but those are mainly from jon merins moe recordings with the schoeps>v3 or 722 :)
Schoeps MK4's | MK41's ->
Schoeps | NBob 250/05 KCY's ->
Schoeps VMS 02IB | Naiant +60v/Low Noise PFA's ->
DarkTrain Right Angle Stubby | GakCable XLR's ->
Sound Devices MixPre-6 | Tascam DR-70D ->
128gb | 64gb SanDisk Extreme Pro SDXC-I

http://www.archive.org/bookmarks/diskobean | http://www.archive.org/bookmarks/Bean420 | http://bt.etree.org/mytorrents.php

 

RSS | Mobile
Page created in 0.32 seconds with 43 queries.
© 2002-2017 Taperssection.com
Powered by SMF
Website Design by Foxtrot Media, Inc., a Baltimore Website Company