Topic: microphone recommendation for acoustic concerts

[jerryfreak]

i have a pair of 4060s here im not using

i guess nobodys using anything these days 

[rocksuitcase]

DPA 4060s are really tough to beat.

for that application. I don't think there's anything in that price range that is as quiet

I have to second this. When I bought the 4061's I thought of them as "lesser" than the AKG actives + omni caps we own (AKG ck22) but I can say I was wrong. They are equal SQ wise and in certain applications they are preferred. Great product IMO. Probably more than the OP wishes to spend (new $1100 ish; used about $8/850).[edit to add this is the price for 4061SK which is Stereo Kit, which includes a bunch of accessories, mainly the microdot to XLR adapters]

[perks]

I've bought and sold a few pairs of like new 4060's/61's in the YS and eBay for ~$500. You may even find an ebay seller with Broadway used pairs discarded for less than that but you may need to hack off the wireless transmitter termination connection and put something more suitable for your application. Just wanted to point out that a patient buyer can find really good deals on these mini omni mics and for my $$ the quality of these mics is hard to beat.

[jerryfreak]

DPA 4060s are really tough to beat.

for that application. I don't think there's anything in that price range that is as quiet

I have to second this. When I bought the 4061's I thought of them as "lesser" than the AKG actives + omni caps we own (AKG ck22) but I can say I was wrong. They are equal SQ wise and in certain applications they are preferred. Great product IMO. Probably more than the OP wishes to spend (new $1100 ish; used about $8/850).

i usually run them as "backup" to 4011/4018 rig in  , but in the right spot, with the right crowd, the omnis really have a preferable open sound. really amazing for what they do

[pillowman]

first I like to thank everyone who contributed hints and stuff, ... great board - thumbs up !

I am not willing to eliminate the 4.7k mod from my beloved AT853mics.
with the mod they are perfect for what I record most of the time, ... amplified loud rock stuff @ the speaker stakes 
so my goal will be to find another preamp (CA-9200) or some 'quieter mics ... budgetwise I am not able to went on the active route
so I will stay with those lavaliers, ... also for stealthable reason.

again, thanks for all the input - stay optimistic and healthy !!!

pillowman

[Gutbucket]

Switching to a different preamp will not do anything to help you with this noise problem, unless the mod is built into the preamp.  The CA-9200 can be, and often is used with other mics including DPA 4060/4061 mentioned above (BTW, 4.7k mod does not apply to those mics).  I use both the original CA-UGLY V1 (based on CA-9100) and a custom 4 channel version of CA-UGLY2 (based on CA-9200) for recording classical music and have no problems with preamp noise.  This includes one music hall venue significantly quieter than most tapers are likely to encounter on a regular basis. I specifically chose 4060 over 4061 for this application due to its higher sensitivity and slightly lower self-noise, even though in most situations 4061 is unlikely to contribute objectionable noise.  When I switched from the DPA MMA6000 preamp (specifically designed for 4060/4061) to the CA-UGLY V1 around 2007 or 8, my informal tests convinced me that preamp noise did not increase in my most quiet recording situations.  I didn't actually measure, but vaguely recall coming across posts not long after that of someone who found CA-UGLY V1 quieter than the MMA6000 within the same gain range.  I don't recall specifics but do recall the feeling of confirmation that my informal noise-check listening test conclusion had been confirmed.  Using 4060, the ambient noise-floor in the room swamps the noise-floor of the recording chain in most cases.

^
That's the primary motivation for this post.



If you are still contemplating what you might do with the 853 prior to moving to alternate mics.. 
Have you determined where the 4.7k mod is located?  As mentioned, within the stereo-miniplug housing is the most common location.  Easy to check by unscrewing the shell and looking to see if there are any resistors inside.  If there are, you could temporarily remove / bypass the mod to determine if that sufficiently addresses the noise problem.  Or maybe borrow a pair of non-modded mics, or even just a non-mod Y harness and use your own capsules to test. If noise is acceptable without the mod, then any of these solutions should work:
1) build/find an alternate Y cable setup which lacks the 4.7k mod (includes the mic-bodies into which you screw your existing capsules).
2) move the 4.7k mod from the mini-plug housing to a short secondary adapter cable (female TRS to male mini TRS) for use when recording louder material.
3) move the mod into the preamp and make it switchable (Chris offers/offered that as an option for 9100/9200).

All of the above options allow you retain the mod for recording louder material.

This has been made a bit more difficult for TS users with Darktrain out of operation.

[kuba e]

Gutbucket described the possibilities in great details how to solve the switchable 4.7 mod.  I would also go this route. If I understand correctly, you have cardiods and omni caps for AT853. This is also an advantage. I would not buy other microphones that are of worse quality than the AT853. If I decided to buy other microphones, I would save and buy dpa4060.

Just a theoretical question:
We have two mics. The first is low and the second hi sensitive. Both mics have the same S/N ratio and the same max SPL. When we have a good preamplifier with very low noise input (lower than the mic's noise), the recording will have the same amount of noise for both microphones. When the preamplifier is not so good and has noisy input (higher than the mic's noise), the recording will have less noise for the hi sensitive microphone. Is this correct?

[jerryfreak]

Just a theoretical question:
We have two mics. The first is low and the second hi sensitive. Both mics have the same S/N ratio and the same max SPL.

if they were the same mics (i.e not vastly different models/types), that would be unusual. lower sens mics in a given capsule series seem to always come with higher self-noise

When we have a good preamplifier with very low noise input (lower than the mic's noise), the recording will have the same amount of noise for both microphones.

well if they have the same self-noise and same max-spl, the only difference in 'low sens' and 'hi sens' would be output level, so given that they are capturing the same material on the front end, to the same specification, unless the output of the higher-sens mic overloads your input, it will be preferable in all cases. Otherwise you risk adding more noise when amplifying it (whether the noise is audible or significant depends on sound level relative to mic self noise, as well as how clean the gain on the input is. However, use of less gain is always preferred to produce less noise, if even on paper)

When the preamplifier is not so good and has noisy input (higher than the mic's noise), the recording will have less noise for the hi sensitive microphone. Is this correct?

yes thats a less wordy version of what i said
whether the noise is actually audible again would be a caveat
and again it would be unusual for a low and hi-sens mics of same series to have same spec

4060 vs 4061 is about 3dB difference in self noise, but about 10dB in max spl on the top-end

mics with a lower sensitivity (lower mV per Pa), can cover a wider range of sound pressure levels inherently over a given range of voltage (at the cost of self-noise)

[Scooter123]

Quiet music is tough to record from a distance. 

If you increase the gain, then you get clapping and other anomalies.  If you keep the gain and record for the clapping and crowd, then the music needs to be boosted. 

From my read of your two posts, that may be the problem. 

If you're recording in a small club, fairly close in, then almost any omni will do just fine.  I don't know if I could tell the difference between any of the mikes mentioned in these posts.  So, if you are budget conscious, then go with Church or AKG.  I've owned a pair of DPA and they sound fantastic, but they won't solve your underlying problem.

I would record the gain for the music and ignore the crowd and either (1) Fool with the limiters on the M-10; or (2) Deal with it in post.  Yeah it may clip, but you can do limiting in post. 

[kuba e]

Thank you Jerryfreak.

When we have a good preamplifier with very low noise input (lower than the mic's noise), the recording will have the same amount of noise for both microphones.

well if they have the same self-noise and same max-spl, the only difference in 'low sens' and 'hi sens' would be output level, so given that they are capturing the same material on the front end, to the same specification, unless the output of the higher-sens mic overloads your input, it will be preferable in all cases. Otherwise you risk adding more noise when amplifying it (whether the noise is audible or significant depends on sound level relative to mic self noise, as well as how clean the gain on the inout is. However, use of less gain is always preferred to produce less noise, if even on paper)

I thought of it this way. If the preamp is really good and it's noise is lower than the microphone noise, then the resulting audible noise on the recording is given only by the microphone. In that case, it should not matter if the microphone has low or hi sensitivity. We can amplify the signal as much as we want. The preamp noise is masked in the microphone noise.

Of course, the preamp demands are higher for low sensitivity microphones.

So, if you are budget conscious, then go with Church or AKG.

Scooter123, I think Chris Church microphones CA11 and CA14 are not suitable for quiet recordings. I recorded a lecture with them and I had a lot of noise in the recording (ca11-> ca9200 on max.-> recorder). Probably their parameters are very similar to AT853 with 4.7 mod.

[Gutbucket]

Probably their parameters are very similar to AT853 with 4.7 mod.

I believe that's about right.

One way of thinking about microphone sensitivity is that it essentially acts as the first gain stage of a recording system.  Higher mic sensitivity requires less gain later in the chain to achieve the appropriate signal output, each stage of which amplifies the noise of all previous stages, along with any EMI noise that may have sneaked in at any point or multiple point along the way, in addition to adding its own.  Higher mic sensitivity helps reduce the opportunities for noise to build up relative to signal level.. until an overly high signal level risks overloading a following stage, which has considerably worse audible momentary consequences than a relatively steady-state higher noise floor.  Cue Little Red Riding Hood seeking the not too big, not to small, not too hard, not to soft comfortable middle ground.

Its also be useful to consider the sensitivity/noise relationship of dynamic microphones.  Dynamics are considerably less sensitive than condensers, yet also have a vanishingly low self-noise due to being based upon a simple conductor moving in a magnetic field. Rather than the noise of the microphone itself, the noise-floor of the recording system is typically determined by the very high-gain amplifier needed to get that extremely low level signal up to a usable level which inevitably amplifies whatever EMI sneaks in along with the low-level source signal.

[Scooter123]

Eh, I owned a pair of Church mikes and they were OK.  Their suitability depends, like all mikes, on a variety of factors such as volume and location. 

I didn't particularly care for them, but that's me.  I recorded quiet jazz shows in small clubs with them, fairly close in. 

[aaronji]

Cue Little Red Riding Hood seeking the not too big, not to small, not too hard, not to soft comfortable middle ground.

Wouldn't that be Goldilocks? 

[Gutbucket]

^ Oops, heroine mix up! 

Scooter nails it in a practical sense in that one can choose to optimize the recorded level of the music itself and allow the louder applause be limited or clipped, or optimize the recorded level to accommodate the applause at the risk of a higher level of audible noise during the quietest portions.

One needs to figure out which way works best given the recording situation, the capabilities of gear being used, and the priorities and work-flow of the taper. 

Its a common choice around TS to do the former, with a focus on noise-free music even if the applause sounds distorted or less than natural.  I've chosen to set things up so that I can accommodate applause without limiting or overload and still get the recording system's noise-floor lower than the acoustic noise-floor in the hall, which I can do using 4060 (barely). It often feels like threading the needle in terms of setting recording levels, and requires extra work afterwards because although the raw recording features neither overload, limiting, nor noise, it features a dynamic range too large for causal listening.  The natural sounding applause is way too loud relative to the quiet and often even the loudest portions of the music - just like it does in real life compared to a finished recording with optimal playback dynamics*.  This shifts the necessary manipulation of dynamics to post-recording work where one can achieve a more natural sounding result in order to avoid the listener having to leap to the volume knob whenever applause comes in.  But it takes a recording system which can fully accommodate such a wide range, setting it up optimally, and post-work to transparently reduce the dynamics.  That's a lot of work that many folks don't want to have to do.

No wrong answer on which way to go there, its one of personal choice.

*It frequently amazes me that in actual performance situations, people don't realize how loud their applause actually is in comparison to the music they have just been listening too and focusing on.  I think this reflects not only natural enthusiasm, but also a fundamental feature of human hearing.  We sort of mentally limit the apparent level perception of our own applause, and have been socially conditioned to do the same for the folks around us.  Now almost painfully consciously aware of this, I frequently feel like I'd like earplugs in just for the applause portions of classical concerts.  Similarly we all have stories of the ridiculously loud clapper that always seems to have the seat adjacent to ours.  Accurate documentation of that dynamic range is not the goal!

[aaronji]

^ Oops, heroine mix up! 

Yes, LRRH would say, "Grandma, what big mics you have!"

*It frequently amazes me that in actual performance situations, people don't realize how loud their applause actually is in comparison to the music they have just been listening too and focusing on.  I think this reflects something about human hearing.  We sort of mentally limit the apparent level perception of our own applause, and have been socially conditioned to do the same for the folks around us.  Now almost painfully consciously aware of this, I frequently feel like I'd like earplugs in just for the applause portions of classical concerts.  Similarly we all have stories of the ridiculously loud clapper that always seems to have the seat adjacent to ours.  Accurate documentation of that dynamic range is not the goal!

This always astounds me, too. One of the big advantages of the modern crop of very high dynamic range recorders is that you can record the whole shebang and decide how to deal with the very loud applause at  your leisure...