Topic: Marantz PMD 671 in the field Part 3...

[spreadheadtom]

What type of music were you taping?  Acoustic, amplified?  Did you run out of gain with the -20db engaged?

It was amplified (asylum street spankers), but very quiet.  With the pad engaged, I had the gain run wide open.

The 414's have thier own pad (-6 dB, -12 dB, -18 dB) did you use the mics own attenuation at all?  Any idea how far from 0 you were?

no pad used on the mics.  maybe 6 db

it's sounds good.  I had nevre heard these guys before, so I was going in blind. 

[TenoRichards]

how does the acm do in low level acoustic recording environments?
i hear that it would not be suitable for recording conversation or f/x. 
luke

You may not have enough gain for FX recording with the ACM 671. I recorded an amplified acoustic guitar duo (AKG C-481> ACM PMD671) with the 671 -10 db attenuater switch on and had to crank the levels full up to "10."

Doug does have a Super mod: http://www.oade.com/digital_recorders/hard_disc_recorders/PMD-671MODS.html that looks like would be great for that type of recording.

Remind me again, someone.....WHY is it important for this machine to run w/ mic attenuation on? If you are running a minus 10 and have to run all the way UP to 10 on gain, what prevents a person, like me, who records classical from just leaving mic attenuation off and finding better levels? What am I missing??

Offtopic: Just did my first Archive upload!!! (And I'm  not sore at ALL, gumbino!!) I'm unsure if I did everything right, and I see that it has not yet auto-generated of streaming flies yet....crossing my fingers. Too bad I had to use the wrong mics for my first time out, but....hell...we had fun!
http://www.archive.org/details/fhd2006-02-26.flac16

[Chuck]

how does the acm do in low level acoustic recording environments?
i hear that it would not be suitable for recording conversation or f/x. 
luke

You may not have enough gain for FX recording with the ACM 671. I recorded an amplified acoustic guitar duo (AKG C-481> ACM PMD671) with the 671 -10 db attenuater switch on and had to crank the levels full up to "10."

Doug does have a Super mod: http://www.oade.com/digital_recorders/hard_disc_recorders/PMD-671MODS.html that looks like would be great for that type of recording.

Remind me again, someone.....WHY is it important for this machine to run w/ mic attenuation on? If you are running a minus 10 and have to run all the way UP to 10 on gain, what prevents a person, like me, who records classical from just leaving mic attenuation off and finding better levels? What am I missing??

Offtopic: Just did my first Archive upload!!! (And I'm  not sore at ALL, gumbino!!) I'm unsure if I did everything right, and I see that it has not yet auto-generated of streaming flies yet....crossing my fingers. Too bad I had to use the wrong mics for my first time out, but....hell...we had fun!
http://www.archive.org/details/fhd2006-02-26.flac16

The "gain" control on the 671 is actually an attenuator. So ideally, you want to use it as close to wide open as possible, so your signal is going through as little potentiometer controlled attenuation as possible. With the C-480's I have to use the -10db pad to get out of the lower half of the control where the signal goes through that nasty attenuation.

[Genghis Cougar Mellen Khan]

how does the acm do in low level acoustic recording environments?
i hear that it would not be suitable for recording conversation or f/x. 
luke

You may not have enough gain for FX recording with the ACM 671. I recorded an amplified acoustic guitar duo (AKG C-481> ACM PMD671) with the 671 -10 db attenuater switch on and had to crank the levels full up to "10."

Doug does have a Super mod: http://www.oade.com/digital_recorders/hard_disc_recorders/PMD-671MODS.html that looks like would be great for that type of recording.

Remind me again, someone.....WHY is it important for this machine to run w/ mic attenuation on? If you are running a minus 10 and have to run all the way UP to 10 on gain, what prevents a person, like me, who records classical from just leaving mic attenuation off and finding better levels? What am I missing??

Offtopic: Just did my first Archive upload!!! (And I'm  not sore at ALL, gumbino!!) I'm unsure if I did everything right, and I see that it has not yet auto-generated of streaming flies yet....crossing my fingers. Too bad I had to use the wrong mics for my first time out, but....hell...we had fun!
http://www.archive.org/details/fhd2006-02-26.flac16

The "gain" control on the 671 is actually an attenuator. So ideally, you want to use it as close to wide open as possible, so your signal is going through as little potentiometer controlled attenuation as possible. With the C-480's I have to use the -10db pad to get out of the lower half of the control where the signal goes through that nasty attenuation.

But which is worse? 

A: engaging the -10 DB pad on the mic, then achieving low levels with the gain at 10

B: running no pad on the mics and applying minimal potentiometer attenuation with the unit, you're already subtracting -20 with the unit.

If your levels are more than 10db below 0 it doesn't seem it'd be necessary to use the mic's -10db pad, unless Doug has some different explaination.

[spreadheadtom]

how does the acm do in low level acoustic recording environments?
i hear that it would not be suitable for recording conversation or f/x. 
luke

You may not have enough gain for FX recording with the ACM 671. I recorded an amplified acoustic guitar duo (AKG C-481> ACM PMD671) with the 671 -10 db attenuater switch on and had to crank the levels full up to "10."

Doug does have a Super mod: http://www.oade.com/digital_recorders/hard_disc_recorders/PMD-671MODS.html that looks like would be great for that type of recording.

Remind me again, someone.....WHY is it important for this machine to run w/ mic attenuation on? If you are running a minus 10 and have to run all the way UP to 10 on gain, what prevents a person, like me, who records classical from just leaving mic attenuation off and finding better levels? What am I missing??

Offtopic: Just did my first Archive upload!!! (And I'm  not sore at ALL, gumbino!!) I'm unsure if I did everything right, and I see that it has not yet auto-generated of streaming flies yet....crossing my fingers. Too bad I had to use the wrong mics for my first time out, but....hell...we had fun!
http://www.archive.org/details/fhd2006-02-26.flac16

The "gain" control on the 671 is actually an attenuator. So ideally, you want to use it as close to wide open as possible, so your signal is going through as little potentiometer controlled attenuation as possible. With the C-480's I have to use the -10db pad to get out of the lower half of the control where the signal goes through that nasty attenuation.

But which is worse? 

A: engaging the -10 DB pad on the mic, then achieving low levels with the gain at 10

B: running no pad on the mics and applying minimal potentiometer attenuation with the unit, you're already subtracting -20 with the unit.

If your levels are more than 10db below 0 it doesn't seem it'd be necessary to use the mic's -10db pad, unless Doug has some different explaination.

My next time out, I will run the mics with their -12db pad on and the 671 at 0db.  My brain tells me that this would be the best way.  We'll see how that works.

[Genghis Cougar Mellen Khan]

My next time out, I will run the mics with their -12db pad on and the 671 at 0db.  My brain tells me that this would be the best way.  We'll see how that works.

I thought I remember Doug telling me that you want to run the pad, I'm not sure if he meant all the time or for a situation we were talking about.  What I was questioning is why you would run the -10db pad on the mics AND the pad on the 671 if you weren't achieving good levels with the recorder's levels knob at 10. (Chuck's situation) Neither of my sets of mics have any self-attenuation, but I might pick up a pair of 414's in the near future, so I'm curious.

[Chuck]

My next time out, I will run the mics with their -12db pad on and the 671 at 0db.  My brain tells me that this would be the best way.  We'll see how that works.

I thought I remember Doug telling me that you want to run the pad, I'm not sure if he meant all the time or for a situation we were talking about.  What I was questioning is why you would run the -10db pad on the mics AND the pad on the 671 if you weren't achieving good levels with the recorder's levels knob at 10. (Chuck's situation) Neither of my sets of mics have any self-attenuation, but I might pick up a pair of 414's in the near future, so I'm curious.

Yeah, Doug told me to run the 671 pad with the C-480's. I may try using the pad on the C-480's and the -10 db 671 pad sometime too.

[Genghis Cougar Mellen Khan]

My next time out, I will run the mics with their -12db pad on and the 671 at 0db.  My brain tells me that this would be the best way.  We'll see how that works.

I thought I remember Doug telling me that you want to run the pad, I'm not sure if he meant all the time or for a situation we were talking about.  What I was questioning is why you would run the -10db pad on the mics AND the pad on the 671 if you weren't achieving good levels with the recorder's levels knob at 10. (Chuck's situation) Neither of my sets of mics have any self-attenuation, but I might pick up a pair of 414's in the near future, so I'm curious.

Yeah, Doug told me to run the 671 pad with the C-480's. I may try using the pad on the C-480's and the -10 db 671 pad sometime too.

See, I was assuming you were already running the -10db pad on the mics AND the -20 db pad on the 671.

You may not have enough gain for FX recording with the ACM 671. I recorded an amplified acoustic guitar duo (AKG C-481> ACM PMD671) with the 671 -10 db attenuater switch on and had to crank the levels full up to "10."

I think what you meant was the -20db pad on the 671 (it's -20 on the unit, not -10)  I was assuming you meant the mics -10 since the 671's switch is -20db.

[spreadheadtom]

now I'm confused.

so which would be better overall?  Running the mics at -12db and the unit set at 0db?  Or leaving the mics alone and running the -20 on the 671?

[Genghis Cougar Mellen Khan]

now I'm confused.

so which would be better overall?  Running the mics at -12db and the unit set at 0db?  Or leaving the mics alone and running the -20 on the 671?

Last time this topic came up: http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=59611.msg837599#msg837599

I say leave the mics alone and use the -20 on the 671, IF that's too much attenuation (low levels) then try the pad on the mics and no pad on the 671.

The whole -10/-20 thing was confusing me. (since it doesn't have -10)

 

[leehookem]

my brain just exploded from reading the last two posts

I find myself almost running out of gain when I run the attenuator on the 671.  I might try running the -10 pad on the mics once I get them back from AKG.

[tfs8271]

Ok I have the 660, but I called Doug when I got my km140s and asked him what I should run and he said leave the mics alone and use the Marantz pad instead. Why I'm not sure. Can one do a better just (cleaner)?

[leehookem]

Last night, Topaz had a new gig.  He played with a new line-up...totally different style of music.  Anyways, my 481s are at AKG for a tune up so I borrowed Matts (thegreatgumbino's) 460s.  As soon as I can figure out how to track this show, i'll post it on the archive.

AKG 463 (JW mod) > ACM 671

[leehookem]

the bar I recorded in is called The Troubadour Saloon.  It's a shotgun bar...really long and narrow...brick walls.  IMO it sounds great, other than a little chatter here and there.  To top it off this was their first gig.  They only rehearsed twice before this show.

as far as being the first one, i'm not sure.

[leehookem]

the fact that my left and right channel was dead even, yes.  I can't wait to get my  mics back.