Topic: Proper Source

[Josephine]

I know this is a silly question (and probably the least of my worries), but I'm curious and just want to make sure I'm doing this right.

I've been writing my source as:  "Schoeps MK41 > actives > NBox > D100."  Is that correct?  Or should it be designated as "MK41s" instead?  After all, there are two of them.  Should I be including the "actives" in there?  And now that I've added a modified SBM-1 into the mix, should I designate it the way I have in my signature down below, "(mod)SBM-1"?

[spyder9]

I know this is a silly question (and probably the least of my worries), but I'm curious and just want to make sure I'm doing this right.

I've been writing my source as:  "Schoeps MK41 > actives > NBox > D100."  Is that correct?  Or should it be designated as "MK41s" instead?  After all, there are two of them.  Should I be including the "actives" in there?  And now that I've added a modified SBM-1 into the mix, should I designate it the way I have in my signature down below, "(mod)SBM-1"?

The way you have it listed is fine.  No need to be plura.  People know you had to run 2 mics, or your recording wouldn't be in stereo.   

Definitely reference the SBM-1 as "SBM-1 (mod)".  Some people are very interested in exactly what you ran that night.   

[Josephine]

Thanks, Dan.

[todd e]

just another thing to think about, i often include a source such as this:

mk41 > kcy (or kc5, depending on your cable) > vms02ib > ad500.  since schoeps has at least two different types of actives, it's a thought.  i don't think i've ever downloaded or not-downloaded a show because the correct type of actives weren't listed, but it helps me remember cause we got both types of actives.

[Nick Graham]

just another thing to think about, i often include a source such as this:

mk41 > kcy (or kc5, depending on your cable) > vms02ib > ad500. since schoeps has at least two different types of actives, it's a thought. i don't think i've ever downloaded or not-downloaded a show because the correct type of actives weren't listed, but it helps me remember cause we got both types of actives.

The NBox uses it's own, already attached active cables - I don't think there's a name/number designation. If you're using the NBox, you have no choice but to use those actives.

[todd e]

yup, youre right. i didn't even think about the one exception (the ever famour NBOX)

but aren't the actives, just kcy's with a different connector (lemosax or something like that connector)

[Nick Graham]

I think you're right. They're pretty much just homebrew KCYs.

[Brian Skalinder]

Maybe someone with an NBox can take some pics.  From the ones I've seen, they:

• use the same Nextel grey connector for the end onto which the caps screw
• use a different connector to screw onto the NBox than the standard KCY
• use completely different, thinner cabling between the two connectors than the KCY
• have the "Y" split within the connector that attaches to the NBox, so there're effectively 2 thin cables running from the NBox out to the mics, instead of the single cable KCY running to ~6" from the mics before it splits

[Nick Graham]

A quick search found this:
http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=28662.0

[macroint]

People know you had to run 2 mics, or your recording wouldn't be in stereo. 

While I agree it's not necessary (nor would it hurt if you did) to make it plural...I wouldn't assume that just because it's in stereo that the taper ran 2 mics: I met a taper who was running a single mic (mono) and he said that he copies one channel and sticks it in the other (using soundforge) to make his recordings stereo (don't worry, he doesn't do BT and he said that when he trades that he makes sure to note this process).

[Nick Graham]

I can't believe I beat Skalinder to the search function...

[spyder9]

People know you had to run 2 mics, or your recording wouldn't be in stereo. 

While I agree it's not necessary (nor would it hurt if you did) to make it plural...I wouldn't assume that just because it's in stereo that the taper ran 2 mics: I met a taper who was running a single mic (mono) and he said that he copies one channel and sticks it in the other (using soundforge) to make his recordings stereo (don't worry, he doesn't do BT and he said that when he trades that he makes sure to note this process).

His recordings are still mono, not stereo though. 

I don't think there are a lot of tapers using 1 mic and copying the channel to make 2 channels.  The WAV file itself would be extremely small compared to a 2 mic recording.  Adding the extra channel would not increase the wav size.  I've tried it.

+T to him for taping anything.  That's what its all about.      

2 mic assumption is consistent, unless the model says different, like a Sony ECM907, which has 2 capsules inside 1 mic.

[nic]

His recordings are still mono, not stereo though. 

I don't think there are a lot of tapers using 1 mic and copying the channel to make 2 channels.  The WAV file itself would be extremely small compared to a 2 mic recording.  Adding the extra channel would not increase the wav size.  I've tried it.

his master source is mono, but the resulting file from soundforge would indeed be stereo(although its sound image would still sound mono, which one could alleviate by adding 1ms or 2ms delay to 1 channel...)
also, copying the 1 channel into a new channel and saving as stereo would definately double the file size compared to the master mono file.

[JasonR]

I wouldn't indicate MK41s if for no other reason than Schoeps makes an MK41S capsule (supercardiod for speech work or other close-up use).  The "S" can be more meaningful than you intend.

[spyder9]

His recordings are still mono, not stereo though. 

I don't think there are a lot of tapers using 1 mic and copying the channel to make 2 channels.  The WAV file itself would be extremely small compared to a 2 mic recording.  Adding the extra channel would not increase the wav size.  I've tried it.

his master source is mono, but the resulting file from soundforge would indeed be stereo(although its sound image would still sound mono, which one could alleviate by adding 1ms or 2ms delay to 1 channel...)
also, copying the 1 channel into a new channel and saving as stereo would definately double the file size compared to the master mono file.

What did you do to accomplish that?  I'm definitely interested in trying what ever you did.  I did a recording last summer where I lost a channel and didn't know it.  The WAV file was small.  I copied the left channel to the right, but the file size remained unchanged.  I use Adobe Audition 1.5.