PDA

View Full Version : DM 24 Gain


Sidhu
June 1st 04, 02:16 PM
Hi,
My first time on this forum.

Im having a lot of trouble getting decent levels from dynamic mics
(57's and 58's) into the DM 24.Were recording voice. Drama actually...
and though the voices are not very loud i would not say there soft
either.. to get anything decent into the SX machine i have to take the
Digital trim all the way up and at times also boost using the
compressor. Even the condersors dont seem to be performing well. There
is a sudden boost at almost the end of the trim control, but id like
somthing inbetween.

The DM24 is routed to a MOTU 1224 via TDIF. All recordings at 44.1/24.
PC Win XP.

thanks a ton
Sidhu

Arny Krueger
June 1st 04, 02:24 PM
Sidhu wrote:
> Hi,
> My first time on this forum.
>
> Im having a lot of trouble getting decent levels from dynamic mics
> (57's and 58's) into the DM 24.Were recording voice. Drama actually...
> and though the voices are not very loud i would not say there soft
> either.. to get anything decent into the SX machine i have to take the
> Digital trim all the way up and at times also boost using the
> compressor. Even the condensers don't seem to be performing well. There
> is a sudden boost at almost the end of the trim control, but id like
> something in-between.
>
> The DM24 is routed to a MOTU 1224 via TDIF. All recordings at 44.1/24.
> PC Win XP.

57s and 58s were designed for very close micing. They are among the less
sensitive mics that are around. I guess there are some Audix mics that are
even less sensitive...

All things considered, it might be easier to just use an appropriate mic for
the application. Just about any condenser mic is appreciably more sensitive,
especially those which are not designed to be vocal mics. Just to mention a
couple of low-sost mics you might want to experiment with, consider the MXL
603 (broad cardioid) and Behrninger ECM8000 (very broad omni). They put
about 10-15 dB more than 57s or 58s, all other things being equal.

Arny Krueger
June 1st 04, 02:24 PM
Sidhu wrote:
> Hi,
> My first time on this forum.
>
> Im having a lot of trouble getting decent levels from dynamic mics
> (57's and 58's) into the DM 24.Were recording voice. Drama actually...
> and though the voices are not very loud i would not say there soft
> either.. to get anything decent into the SX machine i have to take the
> Digital trim all the way up and at times also boost using the
> compressor. Even the condensers don't seem to be performing well. There
> is a sudden boost at almost the end of the trim control, but id like
> something in-between.
>
> The DM24 is routed to a MOTU 1224 via TDIF. All recordings at 44.1/24.
> PC Win XP.

57s and 58s were designed for very close micing. They are among the less
sensitive mics that are around. I guess there are some Audix mics that are
even less sensitive...

All things considered, it might be easier to just use an appropriate mic for
the application. Just about any condenser mic is appreciably more sensitive,
especially those which are not designed to be vocal mics. Just to mention a
couple of low-sost mics you might want to experiment with, consider the MXL
603 (broad cardioid) and Behrninger ECM8000 (very broad omni). They put
about 10-15 dB more than 57s or 58s, all other things being equal.

Roger W. Norman
June 1st 04, 03:12 PM
How can you have a "broad omni" Arny, much less a "very broad omni"?

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> Sidhu wrote:
> > Hi,
> > My first time on this forum.
> >
> > Im having a lot of trouble getting decent levels from dynamic mics
> > (57's and 58's) into the DM 24.Were recording voice. Drama actually...
> > and though the voices are not very loud i would not say there soft
> > either.. to get anything decent into the SX machine i have to take the
> > Digital trim all the way up and at times also boost using the
> > compressor. Even the condensers don't seem to be performing well. There
> > is a sudden boost at almost the end of the trim control, but id like
> > something in-between.
> >
> > The DM24 is routed to a MOTU 1224 via TDIF. All recordings at 44.1/24.
> > PC Win XP.
>
> 57s and 58s were designed for very close micing. They are among the less
> sensitive mics that are around. I guess there are some Audix mics that are
> even less sensitive...
>
> All things considered, it might be easier to just use an appropriate mic
for
> the application. Just about any condenser mic is appreciably more
sensitive,
> especially those which are not designed to be vocal mics. Just to mention
a
> couple of low-sost mics you might want to experiment with, consider the
MXL
> 603 (broad cardioid) and Behrninger ECM8000 (very broad omni). They put
> about 10-15 dB more than 57s or 58s, all other things being equal.
>
>

Roger W. Norman
June 1st 04, 03:12 PM
How can you have a "broad omni" Arny, much less a "very broad omni"?

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> Sidhu wrote:
> > Hi,
> > My first time on this forum.
> >
> > Im having a lot of trouble getting decent levels from dynamic mics
> > (57's and 58's) into the DM 24.Were recording voice. Drama actually...
> > and though the voices are not very loud i would not say there soft
> > either.. to get anything decent into the SX machine i have to take the
> > Digital trim all the way up and at times also boost using the
> > compressor. Even the condensers don't seem to be performing well. There
> > is a sudden boost at almost the end of the trim control, but id like
> > something in-between.
> >
> > The DM24 is routed to a MOTU 1224 via TDIF. All recordings at 44.1/24.
> > PC Win XP.
>
> 57s and 58s were designed for very close micing. They are among the less
> sensitive mics that are around. I guess there are some Audix mics that are
> even less sensitive...
>
> All things considered, it might be easier to just use an appropriate mic
for
> the application. Just about any condenser mic is appreciably more
sensitive,
> especially those which are not designed to be vocal mics. Just to mention
a
> couple of low-sost mics you might want to experiment with, consider the
MXL
> 603 (broad cardioid) and Behrninger ECM8000 (very broad omni). They put
> about 10-15 dB more than 57s or 58s, all other things being equal.
>
>

Arny Krueger
June 1st 04, 03:31 PM
Roger W. Norman wrote:

> How can you have a "broad omni" Arny, much less a "very broad omni"?

Compare and contrast a 635, RE50 or just about any of the omni capsules or
multi-pattern mics in omni mode; versus a DPA 4007, Earthworks QTC, or
even the Behr ECM8000.

The first group of mics have relatively large diaphragms and acceptance
angles that narrow considerably at the upper end of the audible range. They
have audibly peaked-up on-axis response to compensate or this, to give
nominally flat random-incidence response.

The second group don't. Their diaphragms are more like a quarter inch or so,
and they are REALLY omni at virtually all audible frequencies.

Sometimes they sound similar, but sometimes they really don't.

Arny Krueger
June 1st 04, 03:31 PM
Roger W. Norman wrote:

> How can you have a "broad omni" Arny, much less a "very broad omni"?

Compare and contrast a 635, RE50 or just about any of the omni capsules or
multi-pattern mics in omni mode; versus a DPA 4007, Earthworks QTC, or
even the Behr ECM8000.

The first group of mics have relatively large diaphragms and acceptance
angles that narrow considerably at the upper end of the audible range. They
have audibly peaked-up on-axis response to compensate or this, to give
nominally flat random-incidence response.

The second group don't. Their diaphragms are more like a quarter inch or so,
and they are REALLY omni at virtually all audible frequencies.

Sometimes they sound similar, but sometimes they really don't.

Roger W. Norman
June 1st 04, 04:06 PM
"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> Compare and contrast a 635, RE50 or just about any of the omni capsules or
> multi-pattern mics in omni mode; versus a DPA 4007, Earthworks QTC, or
> even the Behr ECM8000.
>
> The first group of mics have relatively large diaphragms and acceptance
> angles that narrow considerably at the upper end of the audible range.
They
> have audibly peaked-up on-axis response to compensate or this, to give
> nominally flat random-incidence response.
>
> The second group don't. Their diaphragms are more like a quarter inch or
so,
> and they are REALLY omni at virtually all audible frequencies.
>
> Sometimes they sound similar, but sometimes they really don't.
>
>

Well, I have an EV 635a and an AT4050, so I have a couple of omni choices,
and other than diaphragm differences, I don't see the coverage being
dramatically different. The characteristics of each of the mics is
different, but the coverage still seems to be somewhat the same, which is
why I was asking. To me an omni isn't about the coverage, but the
characteristics, which is what would make me decide between one and the
other. Just how broad can a mic be over and above 360 degrees? Then again,
the mic cabinet here could ALWAYS use improvement, but dang it, I spent all
the money on the house remodelling and can't even afford another CHEAP mic!
<g>

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

Roger W. Norman
June 1st 04, 04:06 PM
"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> Compare and contrast a 635, RE50 or just about any of the omni capsules or
> multi-pattern mics in omni mode; versus a DPA 4007, Earthworks QTC, or
> even the Behr ECM8000.
>
> The first group of mics have relatively large diaphragms and acceptance
> angles that narrow considerably at the upper end of the audible range.
They
> have audibly peaked-up on-axis response to compensate or this, to give
> nominally flat random-incidence response.
>
> The second group don't. Their diaphragms are more like a quarter inch or
so,
> and they are REALLY omni at virtually all audible frequencies.
>
> Sometimes they sound similar, but sometimes they really don't.
>
>

Well, I have an EV 635a and an AT4050, so I have a couple of omni choices,
and other than diaphragm differences, I don't see the coverage being
dramatically different. The characteristics of each of the mics is
different, but the coverage still seems to be somewhat the same, which is
why I was asking. To me an omni isn't about the coverage, but the
characteristics, which is what would make me decide between one and the
other. Just how broad can a mic be over and above 360 degrees? Then again,
the mic cabinet here could ALWAYS use improvement, but dang it, I spent all
the money on the house remodelling and can't even afford another CHEAP mic!
<g>

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

Benjamin Maas
June 1st 04, 04:13 PM
"Sidhu" > wrote in message ...
> Hi,
> My first time on this forum.
>
> Im having a lot of trouble getting decent levels from dynamic mics
> (57's and 58's) into the DM 24.Were recording voice. Drama actually...
> and though the voices are not very loud i would not say there soft
> either.. to get anything decent into the SX machine i have to take the
> Digital trim all the way up and at times also boost using the
> compressor. Even the condersors dont seem to be performing well. There
> is a sudden boost at almost the end of the trim control, but id like
> somthing inbetween.

Yup... That's the way the board works, unfortunately. The DM 24 has the
world's worst designed trim control. I have no idea what sort of crack the
folks at Tascam were smoking when they designed the board.

If you send the board back to Tascam, there is a modification that they can
make for it that evens out the trim. I haven't had a chance to get the
board here taken care of, but it is supposed to make a pretty big
difference.

http://www.tascam.com/products/DM-24/pdf/dm24micpre.pdf
http://www.tascam.com/products/DM-24/pdf/dm24trimpotgraph.pdf

--Ben

--
Benjamin Maas
Fifth Circle Audio
Los Angeles, CA
http://www.fifthcircle.com

Please remove "Nospam" from address for replies

Benjamin Maas
June 1st 04, 04:13 PM
"Sidhu" > wrote in message ...
> Hi,
> My first time on this forum.
>
> Im having a lot of trouble getting decent levels from dynamic mics
> (57's and 58's) into the DM 24.Were recording voice. Drama actually...
> and though the voices are not very loud i would not say there soft
> either.. to get anything decent into the SX machine i have to take the
> Digital trim all the way up and at times also boost using the
> compressor. Even the condersors dont seem to be performing well. There
> is a sudden boost at almost the end of the trim control, but id like
> somthing inbetween.

Yup... That's the way the board works, unfortunately. The DM 24 has the
world's worst designed trim control. I have no idea what sort of crack the
folks at Tascam were smoking when they designed the board.

If you send the board back to Tascam, there is a modification that they can
make for it that evens out the trim. I haven't had a chance to get the
board here taken care of, but it is supposed to make a pretty big
difference.

http://www.tascam.com/products/DM-24/pdf/dm24micpre.pdf
http://www.tascam.com/products/DM-24/pdf/dm24trimpotgraph.pdf

--Ben

--
Benjamin Maas
Fifth Circle Audio
Los Angeles, CA
http://www.fifthcircle.com

Please remove "Nospam" from address for replies

Arny Krueger
June 1st 04, 04:20 PM
Roger W. Norman wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Compare and contrast a 635, RE50 or just about any of the omni
>> capsules or multi-pattern mics in omni mode; versus a DPA 4007,
>> Earthworks QTC, or even the Behr ECM8000.
>>
>> The first group of mics have relatively large diaphragms and
>> acceptance angles that narrow considerably at the upper end of the
>> audible range.
> They
>> have audibly peaked-up on-axis response to compensate or this, to
>> give nominally flat random-incidence response.
>>
>> The second group don't. Their diaphragms are more like a quarter
>> inch or so, and they are REALLY omni at virtually all audible
>> frequencies.
>>
>> Sometimes they sound similar, but sometimes they really don't.
>>
>>
>
> Well, I have an EV 635a and an AT4050, so I have a couple of omni
> choices, and other than diaphragm differences, I don't see the
> coverage being dramatically different.

Those are both large-diaphragm omnis.

> The characteristics of each
> of the mics is different, but the coverage still seems to be somewhat
> the same, which is why I was asking.

Compare and contrast these to the ominis I listed in the second category.
Thay have far smaller diaphragms.

> To me an omni isn't about the
> coverage, but the characteristics, which is what would make me decide
> between one and the other. Just how broad can a mic be over and
> above 360 degrees?

Niehter of your ominis are anything like omni at 10 KHz.

Regrettably, the 635A spec sheet sheds no light on the directionality
versus frequency. With a circa-1" diaphragm, directionality has
considerably narrowed by 10 KHz.

http://www.avsuperstore.com/PDF/EV635-NDB.pdf

The AT4050 spec sheet only gives directionality of the mic at 1 KHz, which
is hardly very interesting.

http://www.audio-technica.com/prodpro/profiles/AT4050.html

Neither the 635 nor the 4050 in omni mode are especially flat, compared to
the three small diaphragm omnis I mentioned:

http://www.lydsystemer.no/produkter/mikrofoner/dpa/4007.htm

http://www.earthworksaudio.com/images/qtc1_r19_c11_f4.gif

http://download.behringer.com/ECM8000/ECM8000_C_Specs.pdf

> Then again, the mic cabinet here could ALWAYS use
> improvement, but dang it, I spent all the money on the house
> remodelling and can't even afford another CHEAP mic! <g>

I'd go so far as to say that *anybody* can afford a Behr ECM8000, even with
the new improved, higher street price of $49.95! ;-)

Arny Krueger
June 1st 04, 04:20 PM
Roger W. Norman wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Compare and contrast a 635, RE50 or just about any of the omni
>> capsules or multi-pattern mics in omni mode; versus a DPA 4007,
>> Earthworks QTC, or even the Behr ECM8000.
>>
>> The first group of mics have relatively large diaphragms and
>> acceptance angles that narrow considerably at the upper end of the
>> audible range.
> They
>> have audibly peaked-up on-axis response to compensate or this, to
>> give nominally flat random-incidence response.
>>
>> The second group don't. Their diaphragms are more like a quarter
>> inch or so, and they are REALLY omni at virtually all audible
>> frequencies.
>>
>> Sometimes they sound similar, but sometimes they really don't.
>>
>>
>
> Well, I have an EV 635a and an AT4050, so I have a couple of omni
> choices, and other than diaphragm differences, I don't see the
> coverage being dramatically different.

Those are both large-diaphragm omnis.

> The characteristics of each
> of the mics is different, but the coverage still seems to be somewhat
> the same, which is why I was asking.

Compare and contrast these to the ominis I listed in the second category.
Thay have far smaller diaphragms.

> To me an omni isn't about the
> coverage, but the characteristics, which is what would make me decide
> between one and the other. Just how broad can a mic be over and
> above 360 degrees?

Niehter of your ominis are anything like omni at 10 KHz.

Regrettably, the 635A spec sheet sheds no light on the directionality
versus frequency. With a circa-1" diaphragm, directionality has
considerably narrowed by 10 KHz.

http://www.avsuperstore.com/PDF/EV635-NDB.pdf

The AT4050 spec sheet only gives directionality of the mic at 1 KHz, which
is hardly very interesting.

http://www.audio-technica.com/prodpro/profiles/AT4050.html

Neither the 635 nor the 4050 in omni mode are especially flat, compared to
the three small diaphragm omnis I mentioned:

http://www.lydsystemer.no/produkter/mikrofoner/dpa/4007.htm

http://www.earthworksaudio.com/images/qtc1_r19_c11_f4.gif

http://download.behringer.com/ECM8000/ECM8000_C_Specs.pdf

> Then again, the mic cabinet here could ALWAYS use
> improvement, but dang it, I spent all the money on the house
> remodelling and can't even afford another CHEAP mic! <g>

I'd go so far as to say that *anybody* can afford a Behr ECM8000, even with
the new improved, higher street price of $49.95! ;-)

Arny Krueger
June 1st 04, 04:21 PM
Benjamin Maas wrote:
> "Sidhu" > wrote in message ...
>> Hi,
>> My first time on this forum.
>>
>> Im having a lot of trouble getting decent levels from dynamic mics
>> (57's and 58's) into the DM 24.Were recording voice. Drama
>> actually... and though the voices are not very loud i would not say
>> there soft either.. to get anything decent into the SX machine i
>> have to take the Digital trim all the way up and at times also boost
>> using the compressor. Even the condersors dont seem to be performing
>> well. There is a sudden boost at almost the end of the trim control,
>> but id like somthing inbetween.
>
> Yup... That's the way the board works, unfortunately. The DM 24 has
> the world's worst designed trim control. I have no idea what sort of
> crack the folks at Tascam were smoking when they designed the board.

Just guessing, but they may have put in a linear taper pot.

Arny Krueger
June 1st 04, 04:21 PM
Benjamin Maas wrote:
> "Sidhu" > wrote in message ...
>> Hi,
>> My first time on this forum.
>>
>> Im having a lot of trouble getting decent levels from dynamic mics
>> (57's and 58's) into the DM 24.Were recording voice. Drama
>> actually... and though the voices are not very loud i would not say
>> there soft either.. to get anything decent into the SX machine i
>> have to take the Digital trim all the way up and at times also boost
>> using the compressor. Even the condersors dont seem to be performing
>> well. There is a sudden boost at almost the end of the trim control,
>> but id like somthing inbetween.
>
> Yup... That's the way the board works, unfortunately. The DM 24 has
> the world's worst designed trim control. I have no idea what sort of
> crack the folks at Tascam were smoking when they designed the board.

Just guessing, but they may have put in a linear taper pot.

Mike Rivers
June 1st 04, 08:42 PM
In article <m21vc.27057$pt3.4165@attbi_s03> writes:

> Yup... That's the way the board works, unfortunately. The DM 24 has the
> world's worst designed trim control. I have no idea what sort of crack the
> folks at Tascam were smoking when they designed the board.

I wonder what kind of testing they do during the design phases of this
stuff. I've had two pieces in here for review/evalauation (the other
one was TASCAM too) that just have something wrong with them that
could have easily been fixed if only someone had discovered it (before
I did).


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Mike Rivers
June 1st 04, 08:42 PM
In article <m21vc.27057$pt3.4165@attbi_s03> writes:

> Yup... That's the way the board works, unfortunately. The DM 24 has the
> world's worst designed trim control. I have no idea what sort of crack the
> folks at Tascam were smoking when they designed the board.

I wonder what kind of testing they do during the design phases of this
stuff. I've had two pieces in here for review/evalauation (the other
one was TASCAM too) that just have something wrong with them that
could have easily been fixed if only someone had discovered it (before
I did).


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Jay Kadis
June 1st 04, 08:57 PM
In article <znr1086111236k@trad>, (Mike Rivers) wrote:

> In article <m21vc.27057$pt3.4165@attbi_s03>
> writes:
>
> > Yup... That's the way the board works, unfortunately. The DM 24 has the
> > world's worst designed trim control. I have no idea what sort of crack the
> > folks at Tascam were smoking when they designed the board.
>
> I wonder what kind of testing they do during the design phases of this
> stuff. I've had two pieces in here for review/evalauation (the other
> one was TASCAM too) that just have something wrong with them that
> could have easily been fixed if only someone had discovered it (before
> I did).
>
>
> --
> I'm really Mike Rivers )
> However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
> lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
> you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
> and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo


I think Tascam explained their preamp gain adjustment choice as suited to loud
rock'n'roll as opposed to softer types of music. The Mackie D8B has similar
problems with high-gain preamp adjustments.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x

Jay Kadis
June 1st 04, 08:57 PM
In article <znr1086111236k@trad>, (Mike Rivers) wrote:

> In article <m21vc.27057$pt3.4165@attbi_s03>
> writes:
>
> > Yup... That's the way the board works, unfortunately. The DM 24 has the
> > world's worst designed trim control. I have no idea what sort of crack the
> > folks at Tascam were smoking when they designed the board.
>
> I wonder what kind of testing they do during the design phases of this
> stuff. I've had two pieces in here for review/evalauation (the other
> one was TASCAM too) that just have something wrong with them that
> could have easily been fixed if only someone had discovered it (before
> I did).
>
>
> --
> I'm really Mike Rivers )
> However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
> lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
> you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
> and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo


I think Tascam explained their preamp gain adjustment choice as suited to loud
rock'n'roll as opposed to softer types of music. The Mackie D8B has similar
problems with high-gain preamp adjustments.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x

Vasily
June 1st 04, 09:08 PM
(Sidhu) wrote in message >...
> Hi,
> My first time on this forum.
>
> Im having a lot of trouble getting decent levels from dynamic mics
> (57's and 58's) into the DM 24.Were recording voice. Drama actually...
> and though the voices are not very loud i would not say there soft
> either.. to get anything decent into the SX machine i have to take the
> Digital trim all the way up and at times also boost using the
> compressor. Even the condersors dont seem to be performing well. There
> is a sudden boost at almost the end of the trim control, but id like
> somthing inbetween.
>
> The DM24 is routed to a MOTU 1224 via TDIF. All recordings at 44.1/24.
> PC Win XP.
>
> thanks a ton
> Sidhu

The taper on the trim pots sucks. It's a well-known problem with that
board. TASCAM was offering an upgrade for $200 + shipping awhile ago,
I don't know if they still do that.

Try using more sensitive mics, like Arny said. Also, you can get some
of the "in-between" if you're really careful and spend some time
getting the levels. It's very inconvenient though, I agree.

--Vasily

Vasily
June 1st 04, 09:08 PM
(Sidhu) wrote in message >...
> Hi,
> My first time on this forum.
>
> Im having a lot of trouble getting decent levels from dynamic mics
> (57's and 58's) into the DM 24.Were recording voice. Drama actually...
> and though the voices are not very loud i would not say there soft
> either.. to get anything decent into the SX machine i have to take the
> Digital trim all the way up and at times also boost using the
> compressor. Even the condersors dont seem to be performing well. There
> is a sudden boost at almost the end of the trim control, but id like
> somthing inbetween.
>
> The DM24 is routed to a MOTU 1224 via TDIF. All recordings at 44.1/24.
> PC Win XP.
>
> thanks a ton
> Sidhu

The taper on the trim pots sucks. It's a well-known problem with that
board. TASCAM was offering an upgrade for $200 + shipping awhile ago,
I don't know if they still do that.

Try using more sensitive mics, like Arny said. Also, you can get some
of the "in-between" if you're really careful and spend some time
getting the levels. It's very inconvenient though, I agree.

--Vasily

transducr
June 2nd 04, 12:24 AM
"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message >...
> Benjamin Maas wrote:
> > "Sidhu" > wrote in message ...
> >> Hi,
> >> My first time on this forum.
> >>
> >> Im having a lot of trouble getting decent levels from dynamic mics
> >> (57's and 58's) into the DM 24.Were recording voice. Drama
> >> actually... and though the voices are not very loud i would not say
> >> there soft either.. to get anything decent into the SX machine i
> >> have to take the Digital trim all the way up and at times also boost
> >> using the compressor. Even the condersors dont seem to be performing
> >> well. There is a sudden boost at almost the end of the trim control,
> >> but id like somthing inbetween.
> >
> > Yup... That's the way the board works, unfortunately. The DM 24 has
> > the world's worst designed trim control. I have no idea what sort of
> > crack the folks at Tascam were smoking when they designed the board.
>
> Just guessing, but they may have put in a linear taper pot.

this is exactly the case. the modification mentioned is merely a
switching out of all the trim pots to log taper...and it costs
somewhere around $300 IIRC. probably best to just live with it and
just be really careful while adjusting gain...unless you have money to
burn (or someone else's money to burn) on getting done, in which case:
go for it!!!

transducr
June 2nd 04, 12:24 AM
"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message >...
> Benjamin Maas wrote:
> > "Sidhu" > wrote in message ...
> >> Hi,
> >> My first time on this forum.
> >>
> >> Im having a lot of trouble getting decent levels from dynamic mics
> >> (57's and 58's) into the DM 24.Were recording voice. Drama
> >> actually... and though the voices are not very loud i would not say
> >> there soft either.. to get anything decent into the SX machine i
> >> have to take the Digital trim all the way up and at times also boost
> >> using the compressor. Even the condersors dont seem to be performing
> >> well. There is a sudden boost at almost the end of the trim control,
> >> but id like somthing inbetween.
> >
> > Yup... That's the way the board works, unfortunately. The DM 24 has
> > the world's worst designed trim control. I have no idea what sort of
> > crack the folks at Tascam were smoking when they designed the board.
>
> Just guessing, but they may have put in a linear taper pot.

this is exactly the case. the modification mentioned is merely a
switching out of all the trim pots to log taper...and it costs
somewhere around $300 IIRC. probably best to just live with it and
just be really careful while adjusting gain...unless you have money to
burn (or someone else's money to burn) on getting done, in which case:
go for it!!!

Benjamin Maas
June 2nd 04, 12:41 AM
"Jay Kadis" > wrote in message ...
> I think Tascam explained their preamp gain adjustment choice as suited to
loud
> rock'n'roll as opposed to softer types of music. The Mackie D8B has
similar
> problems with high-gain preamp adjustments.

The problem with the pres in this board is even with really good, high-gain
mics, you go from having an average level of -20 to clipping by hardly
touching the trim knob... When a TLM 103 being used as a drumset overhead
isn't clipping the **** out of the preamps/A-D when it is turned 3/4 of the
way up, you know that there is a major issue with the gain staging of this
console.

It is unfortunate as it really is a pretty good sounding console and it is
quite flexible. It just seems like everything that Tascam has been making
over the last few years is a series of "almosts." They almost got the
MX-2424 right, they almost got the DM-24 right, they almost got the DA-78
right, they royally ****ed up the FW-1884. (OK, well almost every major
product has "almost" gotten it right-on).

--Ben


--
Benjamin Maas
Fifth Circle Audio
Los Angeles, CA
http://www.fifthcircle.com

Please remove "Nospam" from address for replies

Benjamin Maas
June 2nd 04, 12:41 AM
"Jay Kadis" > wrote in message ...
> I think Tascam explained their preamp gain adjustment choice as suited to
loud
> rock'n'roll as opposed to softer types of music. The Mackie D8B has
similar
> problems with high-gain preamp adjustments.

The problem with the pres in this board is even with really good, high-gain
mics, you go from having an average level of -20 to clipping by hardly
touching the trim knob... When a TLM 103 being used as a drumset overhead
isn't clipping the **** out of the preamps/A-D when it is turned 3/4 of the
way up, you know that there is a major issue with the gain staging of this
console.

It is unfortunate as it really is a pretty good sounding console and it is
quite flexible. It just seems like everything that Tascam has been making
over the last few years is a series of "almosts." They almost got the
MX-2424 right, they almost got the DM-24 right, they almost got the DA-78
right, they royally ****ed up the FW-1884. (OK, well almost every major
product has "almost" gotten it right-on).

--Ben


--
Benjamin Maas
Fifth Circle Audio
Los Angeles, CA
http://www.fifthcircle.com

Please remove "Nospam" from address for replies

Sidhu
June 2nd 04, 07:10 AM
(Vasily) wrote in message >...
> (Sidhu) wrote in message >...
> > Hi,
> > My first time on this forum.
> >
> > Im having a lot of trouble getting decent levels from dynamic mics
> > (57's and 58's) into the DM 24.Were recording voice. Drama actually...
> > and though the voices are not very loud i would not say there soft
> > either.. to get anything decent into the SX machine i have to take the
> > Digital trim all the way up and at times also boost using the
> > compressor. Even the condersors dont seem to be performing well. There
> > is a sudden boost at almost the end of the trim control, but id like
> > somthing inbetween.
> >
> > The DM24 is routed to a MOTU 1224 via TDIF. All recordings at 44.1/24.
> > PC Win XP.
> >
> > thanks a ton
> > Sidhu
>
> The taper on the trim pots sucks. It's a well-known problem with that
> board. TASCAM was offering an upgrade for $200 + shipping awhile ago,
> I don't know if they still do that.
>
> Try using more sensitive mics, like Arny said. Also, you can get some
> of the "in-between" if you're really careful and spend some time
> getting the levels. It's very inconvenient though, I agree.
>
> --Vasily

Thanks a ton for these replys.. very helpful.... I totally agree with
the D8B having similar issues of sudden gain at the end... even the
32*8 till some extent (was working on these boards till recently). but
none as bad as the DM24. I guess ill just have to live with it.

I was looking at making an investment towards the DM24 for my home
setup in the future.. with the FireWire card option.... but this has
got me thinking... better boards, equall value ? Then i can also just
stik to my original plan of getting a good multi I/O soundcard and a
few Behringer UB802's for pres.. :)

thanks a ton.. nice forum.. ill be around.

sidhu

Sidhu
June 2nd 04, 07:10 AM
(Vasily) wrote in message >...
> (Sidhu) wrote in message >...
> > Hi,
> > My first time on this forum.
> >
> > Im having a lot of trouble getting decent levels from dynamic mics
> > (57's and 58's) into the DM 24.Were recording voice. Drama actually...
> > and though the voices are not very loud i would not say there soft
> > either.. to get anything decent into the SX machine i have to take the
> > Digital trim all the way up and at times also boost using the
> > compressor. Even the condersors dont seem to be performing well. There
> > is a sudden boost at almost the end of the trim control, but id like
> > somthing inbetween.
> >
> > The DM24 is routed to a MOTU 1224 via TDIF. All recordings at 44.1/24.
> > PC Win XP.
> >
> > thanks a ton
> > Sidhu
>
> The taper on the trim pots sucks. It's a well-known problem with that
> board. TASCAM was offering an upgrade for $200 + shipping awhile ago,
> I don't know if they still do that.
>
> Try using more sensitive mics, like Arny said. Also, you can get some
> of the "in-between" if you're really careful and spend some time
> getting the levels. It's very inconvenient though, I agree.
>
> --Vasily

Thanks a ton for these replys.. very helpful.... I totally agree with
the D8B having similar issues of sudden gain at the end... even the
32*8 till some extent (was working on these boards till recently). but
none as bad as the DM24. I guess ill just have to live with it.

I was looking at making an investment towards the DM24 for my home
setup in the future.. with the FireWire card option.... but this has
got me thinking... better boards, equall value ? Then i can also just
stik to my original plan of getting a good multi I/O soundcard and a
few Behringer UB802's for pres.. :)

thanks a ton.. nice forum.. ill be around.

sidhu

Mike Rivers
June 2nd 04, 12:13 PM
"Jay Kadis" > wrote in message ...

> I think Tascam explained their preamp gain adjustment choice as
> suited to loud rock'n'roll as opposed to softer types of music.

OK, so they made that choice. But doesn't it seem kind of silly that
something as versatile as a mixing console should be tailored right at
the front end for recording one particular kind of music?

It's almost like they wanted to keep people who are recording loud
music from getting into too much trouble so they made the setting of
the trim control relatively non-critical over the range where it's
most likely to be used with this type of music. I guess they forgot
from their old days that engineers learn to make adjustments to suit
the working conditions. A lot of mics have pads. There are in-line
pads, and for another $25 retail they could have put a pad switch on
the console.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Mike Rivers
June 2nd 04, 12:13 PM
"Jay Kadis" > wrote in message ...

> I think Tascam explained their preamp gain adjustment choice as
> suited to loud rock'n'roll as opposed to softer types of music.

OK, so they made that choice. But doesn't it seem kind of silly that
something as versatile as a mixing console should be tailored right at
the front end for recording one particular kind of music?

It's almost like they wanted to keep people who are recording loud
music from getting into too much trouble so they made the setting of
the trim control relatively non-critical over the range where it's
most likely to be used with this type of music. I guess they forgot
from their old days that engineers learn to make adjustments to suit
the working conditions. A lot of mics have pads. There are in-line
pads, and for another $25 retail they could have put a pad switch on
the console.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Steve Ryan
June 2nd 04, 02:57 PM
Anyone ever had one open? If the trim's are linear it's pretty easy
to add a parrallel resistor to make them more like log. It might
also help to spread the gain across the resistor more effectively.
I suppose it could lose some upper range, but i haven't heard anyone
complain that it doesn't have enough gain... Since resistors still
tend to be sizable part's it's likely that you could solder a small
resistor across the thing.. (all this said not having one to look at).

I wouldn't want to desolder and replace 16 pot's on a board like that,
but simply adding a bridging resistor might be pretty doable..

Steve

Steve Ryan
June 2nd 04, 02:57 PM
Anyone ever had one open? If the trim's are linear it's pretty easy
to add a parrallel resistor to make them more like log. It might
also help to spread the gain across the resistor more effectively.
I suppose it could lose some upper range, but i haven't heard anyone
complain that it doesn't have enough gain... Since resistors still
tend to be sizable part's it's likely that you could solder a small
resistor across the thing.. (all this said not having one to look at).

I wouldn't want to desolder and replace 16 pot's on a board like that,
but simply adding a bridging resistor might be pretty doable..

Steve

Steve Ryan
June 2nd 04, 02:58 PM
Anyone ever had one open? If the trim's are linear it's pretty easy
to add a parrallel resistor to make them more like log. It might
also help to spread the gain across the resistor more effectively.
I suppose it could lose some upper range, but i haven't heard anyone
complain that it doesn't have enough gain... Since resistors still
tend to be sizable part's it's likely that you could solder a small
resistor across the thing.. (all this said not having one to look at).

I wouldn't want to desolder and replace 16 pot's on a board like that,
but simply adding a bridging resistor might be pretty doable..

Steve

Steve Ryan
June 2nd 04, 02:58 PM
Anyone ever had one open? If the trim's are linear it's pretty easy
to add a parrallel resistor to make them more like log. It might
also help to spread the gain across the resistor more effectively.
I suppose it could lose some upper range, but i haven't heard anyone
complain that it doesn't have enough gain... Since resistors still
tend to be sizable part's it's likely that you could solder a small
resistor across the thing.. (all this said not having one to look at).

I wouldn't want to desolder and replace 16 pot's on a board like that,
but simply adding a bridging resistor might be pretty doable..

Steve

Steve Ryan
June 2nd 04, 02:58 PM
Anyone ever had one open? If the trim's are linear it's pretty easy
to add a parrallel resistor to make them more like log. It might
also help to spread the gain across the resistor more effectively.
I suppose it could lose some upper range, but i haven't heard anyone
complain that it doesn't have enough gain... Since resistors still
tend to be sizable part's it's likely that you could solder a small
resistor across the thing.. (all this said not having one to look at).

I wouldn't want to desolder and replace 16 pot's on a board like that,
but simply adding a bridging resistor might be pretty doable..

Steve

Steve Ryan
June 2nd 04, 02:58 PM
Anyone ever had one open? If the trim's are linear it's pretty easy
to add a parrallel resistor to make them more like log. It might
also help to spread the gain across the resistor more effectively.
I suppose it could lose some upper range, but i haven't heard anyone
complain that it doesn't have enough gain... Since resistors still
tend to be sizable part's it's likely that you could solder a small
resistor across the thing.. (all this said not having one to look at).

I wouldn't want to desolder and replace 16 pot's on a board like that,
but simply adding a bridging resistor might be pretty doable..

Steve