Become a Site Supporter and Never see Ads again!

Author Topic: on-line "Sound Summit" this morning (Oct. 2)  (Read 645 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DSatz

  • Site Supporter
  • (35)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 3038
  • Gender: Male
on-line "Sound Summit" this morning (Oct. 2)
« on: October 02, 2020, 10:26:55 AM »
Hi. I should have posted this sooner, but ... Sound Devices is holding a two-day event, the first day of which was yesterday. This morning it resumes with a presentation from Dr. Helmut Wittek from Schoeps, who will introduce the new CMC 1 L amplifier--a complete alternative to the CMC 6 which is only one inch long and weighing one ounce. Along the way he will talk about the twin themes of miniaturization and modularization, with examples from the company's history since 1950.

Numerous other companies of interest to people here (including DPA, Sonosax and Sound Devices themselves) have already been presenting and/or will present today.

The start time is about half an hour from the time of this posting. Later on, the presentations and the Q & A will be available on YouTube.

To get a link to the live session, please visit www.thesoundsummit.org

--best regards
« Last Edit: October 02, 2020, 02:10:19 PM by DSatz »
music > microphones > a recorder of some sort

Offline morst

  • (2)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4260
  • Merrick Garland *was* a compromise, and just look.
    • #twitterSUCKS
Re: on-line "Sound Summit" this morning (Oct. 2)
« Reply #1 on: October 02, 2020, 11:55:56 AM »
Thanks for the reminder!
I got an email from Sound Devices about it but keep forgetting. Luckily they leave it up on youtube when it's completed.


Day 1 link is 3 hours 50 minutes long https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riVzg63h-7g
Day 2 link in progress now as I type this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y72stmE1CmQ
Day two continued in progress now after a glitch
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNW3pz8R4mw
« Last Edit: October 02, 2020, 01:37:30 PM by morst »
if you are able to vote, and have not yet voted, please VOTE!

Offline jerryfreak

  • (30)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 5047
  • The plural of anecdote is not data
Re: on-line "Sound Summit" this morning (Oct. 2)
« Reply #2 on: October 02, 2020, 04:15:10 PM »
“(PresseBox) (Karlsruhe, 20-10-02 ) The microphone manufacturer Schoeps, in Karlsruhe, Germany, proudly presents the new Colette-series CMC 1 L microphone amplifier. When combined with an MK capsule, it forms the world’s smallest modular studio microphone.”

technically this is a stretch. DPA MMP-E and MMP-G are considerably smaller at the capsule end. the former uses an xlr, in the same manner that many would use a CMC 1L. the latter omits the xlr in typical configurations and is the smallest SDC solution available on the market
People whose posts I wont see:
capnhook, daspyknows, Melanie, morst, Rob D., Scooter123, Sloan Simpson, Walstib62

Offline DSatz

  • Site Supporter
  • (35)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 3038
  • Gender: Male
Re: on-line "Sound Summit" this morning (Oct. 2)
« Reply #3 on: October 05, 2020, 07:18:54 PM »
Now that the event is over, Sound Devices has posted the content on YouTube.

There are three videos for the two days, since on day 2 they had a technical problem which forced them to end the session and start a new one. The links are:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riVzg63h-7g   // day 1 complete
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y72stmE1CmQ   // day 2, part 1, in which the Schoeps presentation comes first
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNW3pz8R4mw   // day 2, part 2.


--jerryfreak, over in the "Team Schoeps" area I've explained in detail that you're comparing the "working" or visible part of a microphone to a complete microphone. According to your logic, Schoeps could have claimed for the past 45+ years that a Colette capsule on an active cable was "the world's smallest studio microphone"--then the capsule end of a Neumann KMF 4i would have been even smaller ... but neither one is a complete studio microphone in itself, nor are the DPAs that you mentioned, from what I can see on their Web site.

--best regards

Edited later to add: And now I see that morst listed the same links a few messages back. Oh, well; consider this a "bump", then. And maybe a "grind" as well.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2020, 07:21:49 PM by DSatz »
music > microphones > a recorder of some sort

Offline voltronic

  • (34)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3178
Re: on-line "Sound Summit" this morning (Oct. 2)
« Reply #4 on: October 05, 2020, 09:47:19 PM »
--jerryfreak, over in the "Team Schoeps" area I've explained in detail that you're comparing the "working" or visible part of a microphone to a complete microphone. According to your logic, Schoeps could have claimed for the past 45+ years that a Colette capsule on an active cable was "the world's smallest studio microphone"--then the capsule end of a Neumann KMF 4i would have been even smaller ... but neither one is a complete studio microphone in itself, nor are the DPAs that you mentioned, from what I can see on their Web site.

I have no horse in this race; just looking for clarity:

As far as I can tell, the sticking point here seems to be whether or not the bit with the active electronics has a detachable passive cable or not.  If that is the case, then the Schoeps CMC 1 K variant seems to be exactly the same idea as the DPA MMP.  The only difference between the K versus the U and L variants is that their cables are detachable, yes? 

For both the DPA and Schoeps solutions: I agree that they should rightly be in a separate category than "active" cables, because all of the amplification is happening at the capsule end, and the other end is a passive connector.

DSatz's, with all respect as our resident Schoeps expert: If your definition of a "complete studio microphone" excludes the DPA MMP, then it should also exclude the Schoeps CMC 1 K.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2020, 09:53:05 PM by voltronic »
DPA 4061 | Line Audio CM3 | Naiant X-Q | AT 853  //  Naiant PFAs | Shure FP24  //  Zoom F6 | Sony PCM-M10
MOTU M2 // KRK Rokit RP5 // Sennheiser HD 650

Team Line Audio

Offline DSatz

  • Site Supporter
  • (35)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 3038
  • Gender: Male
Re: on-line "Sound Summit" this morning (Oct. 2)
« Reply #5 on: October 07, 2020, 03:19:14 PM »
voltronic, you're making me sweat. I should really get to know DPA's product line better than I do. But one of the products mentioned had a detachable active cable with an XLR output, right? That's definitely not a complete studio microphone without the cable, so I think we can set that one aside fairly easily as a red herring, like communism in the "Clue" movie.

The other one, as I recall, had a fixed, passive cable, and jerryfreak said that "the latter omits the xlr in typical configurations"--I guess maybe meaning stealth recording and/or recording with various types of custom electronics. But there were electronic components in the XLR connector, even if not active ones with gain. If so, then regardless of how one would classify the CMC 1 K with a capsule attached, I wouldn't call the front part (alone) of that DPA model a complete studio microphone. Whereas I would call the front part (alone) of the CMC 1 K with a capsule attached a complete studio microphone.

Does that make sense?
« Last Edit: October 07, 2020, 03:27:41 PM by DSatz »
music > microphones > a recorder of some sort

Offline voltronic

  • (34)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3178
Re: on-line "Sound Summit" this morning (Oct. 2)
« Reply #6 on: October 07, 2020, 05:10:28 PM »
voltronic, you're making me sweat. I should really get to know DPA's product line better than I do. But one of the products mentioned had a detachable active cable with an XLR output, right? That's definitely not a complete studio microphone without the cable, so I think we can set that one aside fairly easily as a red herring, like communism in the "Clue" movie.

The other one, as I recall, had a fixed, passive cable, and jerryfreak said that "the latter omits the xlr in typical configurations"--I guess maybe meaning stealth recording and/or recording with various types of custom electronics. But there were electronic components in the XLR connector, even if not active ones with gain. If so, then regardless of how one would classify the CMC 1 K with a capsule attached, I wouldn't call the front part (alone) of that DPA model a complete studio microphone. Whereas I would call the front part (alone) of the CMC 1 K with a capsule attached a complete studio microphone.

Does that make sense?

DSatz,

For your reference:

MMP-ER/ES
MMP-GR/GS

I would agree with you, if the XLR cable in the MMP-E had active electronics inside in the XLR.  I don't believe that it does, however.  Not owning either, my evidence is the existence of the MMP-G, because you aren't fitting any any active components inside that microdot boot.

The product pages do call these "active cables" but the "active" bit is at the capsule end, like the CMC 1 K, and unlike "active cables" used with (most other) Schoeps, AKG, Rode, Neumann, etc. where the active electronics and/or head amp are at the end opposite the capsule.

Again, unless I'm mistaken and there is something active in just the MMP-E XLR connector, the general configuration of these two DPA products seems to the same as the Schoeps CMC 1 K, and therefore I assert that they should be considered in the same category.
DPA 4061 | Line Audio CM3 | Naiant X-Q | AT 853  //  Naiant PFAs | Shure FP24  //  Zoom F6 | Sony PCM-M10
MOTU M2 // KRK Rokit RP5 // Sennheiser HD 650

Team Line Audio

Offline jerryfreak

  • (30)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 5047
  • The plural of anecdote is not data
Re: on-line "Sound Summit" this morning (Oct. 2)
« Reply #7 on: October 07, 2020, 05:14:31 PM »
relocating this from the team thread to here

jerryfreak, I will look into the DPA models that you mentioned; if I end up agreeing with you, I will so advise the people at Schoeps. However, the term "studio microphone" is defined in the German and international standards with a specific meaning, and the configuration that you describe as "our niche world" doesn't fit it. I'm sure you realize that. Studio microphones have (among other things) balanced, low-impedance outputs, and the P12 and P48 powering methods are also standardized.

(edited later to add): I looked at DPA's descriptions and photos of the microphones that you mentioned, and if I understand them correctly, I don't agree with you. Both DPA models have electronics in their special, required cables. By comparison a Colette capsule on a CMC 1 U is a complete microphone with an absolutely standard balanced, low-impedance output--while the CMC 1 L is the same with a not-so-standard output connector. Still, it is self-contained as a microphone. All cables or adapters to be used at the output of a CMC 1 L are entirely passive/pass-through, and contain no electronic components other than wires.

The DPA looks like a perfectly good design, but some of its required circuitry isn't in the microphone body. So you are talking about the "visible" or "working" part of the DPA microphone being smaller than the whole Schoeps microphone. That's not apples to apples. I could be a smartass and tell you that a microphone that requires a special (say) 5-meter cable containing circuitry, in order to deliver a balanced, low-impedance signal, is really 5 meters long plus a little--but I probably won't.

--best regards

ill concede the unbalanced MMP-G may not fit your definition for studio microphone due to its unbalanced output. However, i was pretty explicit when i said "the former [MMP-E] uses an xlr, in the same manner that many would use a CMC 1L."

as far as electrically, the cabling used in the MMP-E, is a 3-wire design which uses impedance balancing, as opposed to inverting/electrical balancing, to the same results. the XLR output is electrically balanced and standard for any microphone preamp. it uses P48 only. are CMC5s and other P48-only mics then not in the studio standard?

how many people using CMC1L wont be using the (supplied) KL 5U XLR connector? while you may consider what schoeps pictures to be a 'complete' microphone, the number of people with LEMO inputs on their preamps is miniscule. The supplied XLR connector is in fact a required portion of the microphone for almost all users. Unless a user has a lemosax (i think there is a VMS variant as well?) or is planning on using a special low-pro XLR like, say, those by cable techniques, the DPA is significantly smaller as a package

capsule end:
DPA: smaller diameter, 19 vs 20 mm, preamp is under 1/2" long, and cable is smaller and less obtrusive than the schoeps (in both side and rear exit versions)
Schoeps: capsule/CMC1L is larger diameter, preamp is 1" long, and the detachable cable is significantly larger than the DPA. Even if the cable in the fixed CMC-1K model is less obtrusive, the preamp and capsule are still larger on the schoeps side.

at the XLR end, here is a pic of a current MMP-ER (vs an nbob which is considerably shorter than a CMC1L which i do not have)
as you can see, unlike the older (non-modular) 402X series, the XLR is the same length as the pictured neutrik NC*MX series which schoeps appears to use in the supplied KL 5U cable



just because schoeps doesnt picture the KL 5U cable on its CMC 1 L page doesnt mean its any less necessary to operate the microphone. In fact, given the length of the required XLR cable connector, a CMC 1 U plugged right in with a KC5 might perhaps be smaller than a complete CMC 1 L setup

i dont have a dog in the fight, or perhaps you say i have both of the dogs in the fight, as im on both teams


« Last Edit: October 07, 2020, 05:27:28 PM by jerryfreak »
People whose posts I wont see:
capnhook, daspyknows, Melanie, morst, Rob D., Scooter123, Sloan Simpson, Walstib62

Offline DSatz

  • Site Supporter
  • (35)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 3038
  • Gender: Male
Re: on-line "Sound Summit" this morning (Oct. 2)
« Reply #8 on: October 08, 2020, 03:20:37 PM »
jerryfreak, quite frankly I'm not going to read all that. But as I said earlier, one of the two product lines that you mentioned is an active cable system. People here use capsules on active cables as if they were complete microphones, because they also use custom electronics that contain enough back end amplifier circuitry for ultra-compact location recording. That's great--but Schoeps' claim was explicitly about studio microphones--a category that's spelled out in great detail in the DIN and IEC standards. The front end (alone) of an active cable system simply doesn't meet the definition.

As you may know, Schoeps invented, and for many years held the patent on, active cables and other active accessories. For a while they even sold Colette active cables that were divided in the middle, with Lemo connectors so that (passive) extensions could be used, or special components such as the Colette active 4:1 mixer that had Lemo sockets for its inputs. They also sold a lavalier mike (CM 03 L) and instrument mikes (CM 02 L) that contained active circuitry and terminated in the same type of Lemo connector (incidentally, not the same Lemo connector they use today, to which I say, "fortunately"--the old ones were finicky and came apart too easily). Anyway they obviously were perfectly well aware of such arrangements and their usefulness in special situations.

Yet Schoeps never claimed that an MK capsule on a KC (Colette) extension cable was "the world's smallest studio condenser microphone". They did, however, make precisely that claim 20 years later when they introduced the CCM series. And as far as I'm concerned, they were right both times.

(Full disclosure: In some of the early Colette series literature the term "miniature microphone" was used to describe a capsule on a Colette cable--and I always felt that that usage was wrong simply on logical grounds. Apparently it came from the French broadcasters, who were also the first to call the CMMT-series remote capsule arrangement "a Colette", years before the actual Colette series was created--and since Mr. Wuttke was Schoeps' primary contact with the French market as well as being the chief engineer of the company AND back then, the person who wrote their sales literature (!), it crept into all their writing. -- But to the best of my knowledge they never said "miniature studio microphone" when referring to that arrangement, and if they had done so, in my opinion that would have been really wrong. Again, when a German manufacturer says "studio microphone" then they are tying themselves to the DIN standard for studio microphones. We Americans are more used to throwing terms around as if they mean whatever we want them to mean, but it's no casual matter for a German manufacturer.)

--Again I don't know how many times I have posted in this forum that an "active" extension device (cable, etc.) isn't just anything that goes between the capsule and amplifier of a condenser microphone. Rather, an "active" extension component is so called because it contains active circuitry, i.e. it has gain (current and/or voltage) and requires a power supply. The main component in most active accessories is a FET plus the resistors around it that bias it, or perhaps a chip that amounts to the same thing. This is primarily an impedance transformer, i.e. it accepts the signal from the capsule (with its extremely high output impedance, especially at low frequencies) and amplifies its current. This enables the signal to travel down the extension cable with far less risk of signal losses (which may be frequency-dependent) or interference than if the active circuitry weren't there. (Passive / non-active extensions, which typically have those problems if there's no active circuitry in front of them, have been available for nearly as long as condenser microphones have been on the market.)

However, in the Schoeps design, it was always assumed that the main portion of the amplifier would be on the other end of that extension cable, which would further amplify the current and provide a low-impedance, balanced output as required of a studio microphone. The extension cables, etc., in the Schoeps system are at a "low-ish" impedance (several hundred Ohms) rather than a truly low impedance, and they are unbalanced. So again, the fact that people here chop the cables in half and use them with third-party gear is irrelevant to what category the original product, as designed and produced by its manufacturer, falls into. And I really wish that you would keep that in mind when you raise your arguments.

By the way, the DIN/IEC standards call for a balanced output circuit, but balance is defined as equal output impedance on the two modulation leads. It doesn't require that they be symmetrically driven or that they both be driven at all. That's usually unimportant in the studio environment that the standards are concerned with. In that world, the responsibility is on the receiving input to respond in "differential mode" rather than "common mode"--and again, that requires only that the impedances be the same. If a balanced output had to be symmetrically driven, then none of Neumann's transformerless microphones for the past 25+ years could be considered "studio microphones", for example, which is ridiculous.

--best regards
« Last Edit: October 10, 2020, 12:49:03 PM by DSatz »
music > microphones > a recorder of some sort

Offline jerryfreak

  • (30)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 5047
  • The plural of anecdote is not data
Re: on-line "Sound Summit" this morning (Oct. 2)
« Reply #9 on: October 08, 2020, 03:29:59 PM »
jerryfreak, quite frankly I'm not going to read all that.

... then types a response thats twice as long  :D

thanks for the response tho. informative as always

we will just have to agree to disagree
People whose posts I wont see:
capnhook, daspyknows, Melanie, morst, Rob D., Scooter123, Sloan Simpson, Walstib62

Offline DSatz

  • Site Supporter
  • (35)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 3038
  • Gender: Male
Re: on-line "Sound Summit" this morning (Oct. 2)
« Reply #10 on: October 08, 2020, 03:54:57 PM »
It's not the amount that you wrote; it's the amount that's not relevant, and that ignores the central point of what I'd already said.

I don't think it's productive to argue unless something is uncovered in the process that serves the forum generally. I tried to provide the (possibly) missing background information, to help clarify people's thinking on these topics. A lot seemed to be missing, so yep, I wrote several paragraphs there. I did my best to mix old and new information, so that it would be worth reading for some number of people if they're interested. I kind of wish that this was happening in the "Team Schoeps" area instead, where my Schoeps geekery might not seem so excessive. But this is where you chose, and for better or worse I followed.

--best regards

P.S.: I don't agree that we have to agree to disagree. We already disagree without any agreement to do so. Yes?
« Last Edit: October 08, 2020, 04:05:54 PM by DSatz »
music > microphones > a recorder of some sort

Offline jerryfreak

  • (30)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 5047
  • The plural of anecdote is not data
Re: on-line "Sound Summit" this morning (Oct. 2)
« Reply #11 on: October 08, 2020, 04:08:08 PM »
to simplify
i fail to see how a complete microphone with a balanced output where some of the electronics are in the xlr end is any less of a 'studio microphone' than a microphone of similar size and function where 100% of the electronics are in the 'active' end.

you could unplug a CMC14+KU 5L and plug in a MMP-E+4011 and have equivalent SPL and sensitivity, on same XLR3 P48-powered output.  remove either the KL 5U cable, or the similarly sized  MMP-E and you are left with the same thing in both cases... a non functional condenser mic.

you mention that there are DIN/IEC standards for what makes a studio microphone, but stop short of articulating what those are specifically, and *why* the DPA does not fit that criteria
People whose posts I wont see:
capnhook, daspyknows, Melanie, morst, Rob D., Scooter123, Sloan Simpson, Walstib62

Offline DSatz

  • Site Supporter
  • (35)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 3038
  • Gender: Male
Re: on-line "Sound Summit" this morning (Oct. 2)
« Reply #12 on: October 09, 2020, 12:26:23 AM »
Oh, no disagreement there; it's a studio microphone (assuming there's no other weird reason for it not to qualify as that).

But if there are electronic components in the XLR plug, then IMO that part of the microphone should be considered when making size comparisons, is all.

--best regards

P.S.: Thank you for boiling this down to essentials like that.
music > microphones > a recorder of some sort

 

RSS | Mobile
Page created in 0.052 seconds with 41 queries.
© 2002-2020 Taperssection.com
Powered by SMF