Jonny Durango Oct 1, 3:51 am
response unless your audience is something other than human beings

Yes, they are clearly not numan beings.

Ben Bradley Oct 1, 12:45 pm
The 'impedance balancing' will actually work in this case
(presuming the Tannoys have real balanced inputs, which I would think
they do).

Thanks, this solves at least one of my problems.

the 1010 really does have balanced I/O.

Actually, I have not decided yet whether to get 66/44 or 1010. 1010
would be useful for some future projects, not only for the current one.
However, much depends on the cost of the final recording solution,
which I have not decided on yet. I haven't called SoundDevices for
their prices yet but I guess that they are beyond my budget.

By the way, I found that Marantz PMD671 recorder's A-weighted signal to
noise ratio of the MIC input is 65 dB. Isn't it extremely bad?

That's your problem,bring the !__!
!__!
!__!
!__!
! !
to look over the language barrier

--
Oleg Kaizerman(gebe) Hollyland, sorry have to mix , very borring add gig

message . ..
Oleg Kaizerman wrote:
matter

Oleg, if you start using the exactly correct english words we may not be
able to understand you any more g.

John Blankenship, C.A.S.
Indianapolis
(email: my initials at mw daht net)



Ben Bradley wrote:

btw, tannoys SUCK!!

j/k =)

ps: I think Delta interfaces are great and still use my 1010


According to Arny Krueger, who tested his Delta products after I
mentioned the 66 not being balanced, the 1010 really does have
balanced I/O. While my 66 is clearly not balanced, I've not had any
problems or complaints with it in actual use. OTOH I haven't used it
in common "extreme" circumstances such as around high-power light
dimmers while recording a live performance.


Before I got my 1010 I had a 66 that worked just fine....I also never
got any complaints and it was a great little soundcard. Nonetheless, I
have noticed that my 1010 sounds cleaner and slightly less harsh. Some
of this might be due to my engineering skills improving over time, but I
think if you put the 1010 and the 66 side-by-side you would notice a
slight difference in sonic characteristics. Either way, they are both
great interfaces!

--

Jonny Durango

"If the key of C is the people's key, what is the key of the bourgeoisie?"

David Satz wrote:
snip

Great post David!! (as usual).....I guess I've just read so many great
things about the CMC6+MK41 that I would be wary of messing with such
great success, especially with the issues surrounding "extended freq.
response" mics that you mention. Nonetheless, Schoeps is probably one of
the most respected mic manufacturers around and I'm sure their "xt" line
is great for it's purpose.

--

Jonny Durango

"If the key of C is the people's key, what is the key of the bourgeoisie?"

RD, someone just asked a Neumann representative about 30-Volt operation
of one of their microphones; see the reply on:
http://www.neumann.com/forums/view.p...y=112841 7659
..

--best regards

Mike Rivers wrote:
Richard Crowley wrote:

If I want to use the good mics that require 48v, I'll likely use
something a bit more substantial to record on.


Well, me too, but at this point we have to spend about twice as much as
the MT (thinking Marantz PMD671 here) and I don't know any more about
that than I do about the MT at this point.


The PMD671 is a 24-bit device and it appears (at least for now) that the
MicroTrack 2496 is a 16-bit device. The PMD660 price is quite ,
competitive with that of the MicroTrack, no?

Pawel Kusmierek wrote:

Why did I start reading this group? ;-D

I was planning to get a MicroTrack with Schoeps MK41/CMC6 xt mic for
recording and a Delta card with Tannoy Reveal 6D active monitors for
playback. I chose Delta specifically to make sure that the long
card-to-speaker connections won't pick up too much noise - I wanted
them balanced.

Now, after just few days of reading the group, I learned that
MicroTrack is bad for many reasons, that it won't work with Schoeps,
that Schoeps MK41 is excellent but the xt amplifier is not, and that
the Delta is not balanced. OK, now I'm ready to hear something bad
about the Tannoys....


Welcome! Notions disabused regularly, and mostly for the good...

John Blankenship wrote:
hank alrich wrote:

I'm starting to work with sets of four tracks kurt A recorded to his
Sound Devices 744T at the Indian Valley Community Center Music Festival
we put on (and he mixed) back in August. The quality of the preamps and
the conversion in that little box is admirable.


Of course, if he recorded four tracks, only two of them used the preamps
on the 744T, so did he use those two plus two others, or did he send all
four channels from a mixer? If he used 2+2 what preamps did he use for
the other two and how did they compare with the on-board preamps?

In fact, for this particular event, the internal preamps were not
utilized at all (due to a subsequently corrected preamp noise problem.)
Channels 1 & 2 were fed by a pair of CCM-41's into a Grace Lunatec V2.
Channels 3 & 4 were fed by board aux submixes of (mostly) vox and
instruments respectively.

Martin Harrington wrote:
Isn't this really a moot argument.
Really.....who's going to put one of their mics directly into this thing?

I would, if it worked. To be honest, I don't expect that mic preamps in
a recorder that costs this little will be sooper-dooper, but there's no
reason why today they can't be as good as the mic preamps in the mixer
that would likely be used. Mixers that provide phantom powering but at
less than 48V were never all that popular either.

We'd all be using a mixer as a front end.
It's amazing how this group loses the point of the original statement so
easily.

Honestly, most of the time that I use my Jukebox 3, it's connected to a
mixer, either one that I bring with me or one that's already there. But
given its size, it would be tempting to use for gigs where the pay
doesn't make it worth while to leave the house with two shoulder bags
full of equipment, or for things that I'd like to record informally but
don't just because I'd have to carry too much stuff. I suppose I could
always get a single point stereo mic to use specificaly with it,
probably one that I could stuff in another pocket. But that's yet
another cost associated with using this recorder.

"Kurt Albershardt" wrote ...
The PMD660 price is quite competitive with that of the
Micro Track, no?

It appears to be around 25% more expensive according
to the lowball prices on Froogle. ($450 vs. $360)

And PMD660 cannot record at 96 kHz

wrote:

I still find myself using minidisc (PCM mode) when I need
a portable recorder. It is small, has removeable media, and has a nice remote
with level meters. I use electret mics (AT853, Senn MKE2, AKG CK93 capsules),
so I can power these with a simple "battery box" using a 9V battery. I'm
thinking of moving to the microtrack or the Edirol R1, but I'm not really in a
hurry.

I have been following the MicroTrack threads and summarising them for
the convenience of my readers at The Theatre of Noise. I also just
posted a rather detailed review of the MZ-RH10 Hi-MD device.

Basically, I don't see how you can do better for discrete location
recording without paying several times more.

I would love better mic preamps, phantom power, 24-bit quality, etc.
but the MicroTrack doesn't measure up and likely nothing will. Not for
$300. Adding external battery power and even a pre-amp is still way
cheaper (and more versatile, since you need only bring along the
components you need for a given gig).

-----
robin
noisetheatre.blogspot.com

Pawel Kusmierek wrote:

By the way, I found that Marantz PMD671 recorder's A-weighted signal to
noise ratio of the MIC input is 65 dB. Isn't it extremely bad?

Pretty bad, if your measurement is correct.

How did you measure it?


--
Len Moskowitz PDAudio, Binaural Mics, Cables, DPA, M-Audio
Core Sound http://www.core-sound.com
Teaneck, New Jersey USA Tel: 201-801-0812, FAX: 201-801-0912

Kurt Albershardt wrote:

The PMD671 is a 24-bit device and it appears (at least for now) that the
MicroTrack 2496 is a 16-bit device. The PMD660 price is quite ,
competitive with that of the MicroTrack, no?

MicroTrack 24/96 now accepts 24-bit S/PDIF signals. So it's a 24-bit
device, no? It's more of a 16-bit recorder when using its mic pre-amp
or Line input.

The PMD671 may be a 16-bit device too if its mic pre-amps have 96 dB or
less dynamic range or are significantly noisy.



--
Len Moskowitz PDAudio, Binaural Mics, Cables, DPA, M-Audio
Core Sound http://www.core-sound.com
Teaneck, New Jersey USA Tel: 201-801-0812, FAX: 201-801-0912

robin wrote:

Basically, I don't see how you can do better for discrete location
recording without paying several times more.

For the price, I agree. To do better you'd need a device with true
24-bit noise and distortion specs on the Mic & Line input.

Or add a better mic pre/A-to-D to the MicroTrack 24/96's S/PDIF input.

--
Len Moskowitz PDAudio, Binaural Mics, Cables, DPA, M-Audio
Core Sound http://www.core-sound.com
Teaneck, New Jersey USA Tel: 201-801-0812, FAX: 201-801-0912

"Pawel Kusmierek"


By the way, I found that Marantz PMD671 recorder's A-weighted signal to
noise ratio of the MIC input is 65 dB. Isn't it extremely bad?



** No - it is actually quite OK.

The - 65 dB is relative to an input level of 1.3 mV so translates to -120.5
dBu.

For use with a phantom or battery powered mic the mic pre-amp is fine.



......... Phil

"Segensreich Maschinerich"


By the way, I found that Marantz PMD671 recorder's A-weighted signal to
noise ratio of the MIC input is 65 dB. Isn't it extremely bad?

Yes, it is.


** Utter nonsense.

The 65 dB s/n figure translates to -120.5 dBu EIN.

See my post to Pawel.


BTW, I think a dynamic range of 94 dB isn't anything to
write home about either, not in these days.


** Then you "think" like a total ******.




............ Phil
..

** No - it is actually quite OK.

The - 65 dB is relative to an input level of 1.3 mV so translates to -120.5
dBu.


How do you know that it is re 1.3 mV?

"Pawel Kusmierek"

** No - it is actually quite OK.

The - 65 dB is relative to an input level of 1.3 mV so translates
o -120.5
dBu.


How do you know that it is re 1.3 mV?


** Typo - should be rel 1.2 mV - so even better.

http://www.d-mpro.com/users/getdownl...DownloadID=300




......... Phil

The link is not working.

"Pawel Kusmierek"

The link is not working.


** Use this - click on "Datasheet " a 70.4 KB pdf.

http://www.d-mpro.com/users/folder.a...Tab=Data+Sheet

See spec for mic input sensitivity at the bottom of the second page.


BTW

Does you mummy still hold your hand when you go to the potty ?



......... Phil

See spec for mic input sensitivity at the bottom of the second page.

Thanks

Does you mummy still hold your hand when you go to the potty ?

Both mummy and daddy.

Input sensitivity (MIC) 1.2mVrms/3 kOhms

Ok, I understand that the noise is given relative to this value. But
please explain what does this value mean in terms of the recoders
capability to handle microphone signal? What if 12 or 120 mV is
provided by the mic?

[Please refrain from 'mummy and potty' comments, I am educated in a
quite different field, I have to do some recordings and I am trying to
learn something here]

"Pawel Kusmierek"


** You are snipping far too much.


See spec for mic input sensitivity at the bottom of the second page.

Thanks

Does you mummy still hold your hand when you go to the potty ?

Both mummy and daddy.

Input sensitivity (MIC) 1.2mVrms/3 kOhms

Ok, I understand that the noise is given relative to this value. But
please explain what does this value mean in terms of the recoders
capability to handle microphone signal? What if 12 or 120 mV is
provided by the mic?


** There is a thing called a "gain control" to deal with that.

Does that need explaining too ??


[Please refrain from 'mummy and potty' comments, I am educated in a
quite different field, I have to do some recordings and I am trying to
learn something here]


** Then download the Owner's Manual and read it all.




.......... Phil

** Then download the Owner's Manual and read it all.

Ok I read it and there is still one thing I am not sure about. And
mummy cannot explain it .
Can anybody please follow my reasoning, tell me if it is OK, and also
answer the final question please?

So, here it goes:
Normally, the mic input sensitivity of PMD671 is 1.2mV and noise is
-65dB, which equals 0.67 uV.

Let's assume that I am using Schoeps MK41+CMC6xt, whose sensitivity is
13mV/Pa.
This means that the mic provides 0.26uV at 0dBSPL. At 8.25 dBSPL the
mic provides
0,67 uV - this means that with this mic the pre-amp's noise is
equivalent to 8.25 dB SPL, which of course would be very good. Actually
the mic's noise is higher at most of the freuquency band.

But, the Schoeps reaches 1.2 mV at 73.25 dB SPL. So, to record a louder
sound I must adjust Marantz's gain to avoid overload.
Let's assume that I decrease gain by 20 dB, either with the MIC ATTEN
switch, or with the REC LEVEL knob.

Now, if sound level is 93.25 dB SPL and Schoeps produces 12 mV, this
voltage is reduced by 20 dB to 1.2 mV so PMD can handle it.

All correct until know?

If yes, here is the final question:

What happens to the preamp noise? In other words, is gain controlled
before or after the preamp?

I would guess that gain is controlled before the preamp - this makes
sense if we want to avoid preamp overload. If this is true, then the
noise is still 0.67 uV, which is still 65 dB below the signal, which is
1.2 mV after the gain reduction . In such case, the preamp noise is now
equivalent to 28.25 dB SPL which is not so good. And if I want to
record a sound which peaks at 113.25 dB SPL, then I need to reduce gain
by another 20 dB, and the preamp noise would be equivalent to 48.25 dB
SPL.

Another possibility is that gain is reduced after the preamp. If this
was true, then the preamp noise would be reduced along with the signal.
For 20 dB reduction (necessary to record a 93.25 SPL sound as 1.2 mV),
the noise would be reduced to 0.067 uV, which would be still equivalent
to 8.25 dB SPL. And the actual S/N ratio would be 85 dB, and 105 dB for
the 40 dB gain reduction. I think that this not the case because of two
reasons:
1. As I said above, I understand that the whole gain thing is aimed at
avoiding preamp overload, so gain should be reduced before the preamp.
2. Why should they advertise the recorder's S/N as 65 dB, if it can
reach 85 or 105 dB.

I would appreciate an answer, a polite one, if possible. Thanks.

On 13 Oct 2005 16:29:08 -0700, "Pawel Kusmierek"
wrote:

What happens to the preamp noise? In other words, is gain controlled
before or after the preamp?

Excellent question, and very pertinent. The answer
is before, during, and after.

Before includes switchable resistive pads, "attenuators".
During includes variable gain stages, and after includes
lotsa other stuff.

Setting gains in a mic preamp is one of the more
interesting design bits, actually.

Thanks!

Chris Hornbeck

"Pawel Kusmierek"

** Then download the Owner's Manual and read it all.

Ok I read it and there is still one thing I am not sure about. And
mummy cannot explain it .
Can anybody please follow my reasoning, tell me if it is OK, and also
answer the final question please?

So, here it goes:
Normally, the mic input sensitivity of PMD671 is 1.2mV and noise is
-65dB, which equals 0.67 uV.

Let's assume that I am using Schoeps MK41+CMC6xt, whose sensitivity is
13mV/Pa.
This means that the mic provides 0.26uV at 0dBSPL. At 8.25 dBSPL the
mic provides
0,67 uV - this means that with this mic the pre-amp's noise is
equivalent to 8.25 dB SPL, which of course would be very good. Actually
the mic's noise is higher at most of the freuquency band.

But, the Schoeps reaches 1.2 mV at 73.25 dB SPL. So, to record a louder
sound I must adjust Marantz's gain to avoid overload.
Let's assume that I decrease gain by 20 dB, either with the MIC ATTEN
switch, or with the REC LEVEL knob.

Now, if sound level is 93.25 dB SPL and Schoeps produces 12 mV, this
voltage is reduced by 20 dB to 1.2 mV so PMD can handle it.

All correct until know?

If yes, here is the final question:

What happens to the preamp noise? In other words, is gain controlled
before or after the preamp?

I would guess that gain is controlled before the preamp - this makes
sense if we want to avoid preamp overload. If this is true, then the
noise is still 0.67 uV, which is still 65 dB below the signal, which is
1.2 mV after the gain reduction . In such case, the preamp noise is now
equivalent to 28.25 dB SPL which is not so good. And if I want to
record a sound which peaks at 113.25 dB SPL, then I need to reduce gain
by another 20 dB, and the preamp noise would be equivalent to 48.25 dB
SPL.

Another possibility is that gain is reduced after the preamp. If this
was true, then the preamp noise would be reduced along with the signal.
For 20 dB reduction (necessary to record a 93.25 SPL sound as 1.2 mV),
the noise would be reduced to 0.067 uV, which would be still equivalent
to 8.25 dB SPL. And the actual S/N ratio would be 85 dB, and 105 dB for
the 40 dB gain reduction. I think that this not the case because of two
reasons:
1. As I said above, I understand that the whole gain thing is aimed at
avoiding preamp overload, so gain should be reduced before the preamp.
2. Why should they advertise the recorder's S/N as 65 dB, if it can
reach 85 or 105 dB.

I would appreciate an answer, a polite one, if possible. Thanks.



** You have made a fundamental error in assuming the 1.2mV *sensitivity*
figure represents the mic input's overload level. Marantz have not fully
speced the unit so I can only surmise that the mic pre-amp raises the level
from 1.2 mV to 300 mV to match the line level input sensitivity.

The maximum output of the mic-preamp is gonna be way more than 300mV
output - possibly as much as 10 volts. That means the input overload level
is 40 mV direct and 400mV with the -20 dB pad in use.

With a 40 mV signal from the mic and the " rec level "adjusted to give 30 dB
attenuation, the recorded s/n works out at 95 dB. This will need 105 dB SPL
at the diaphragm of your Schoeps mic to achieve.

You simply *cannot* expect to make a recording with 95 dB s/n UNLESS the
SPL is around 105 - 110 dB.

If the SPL is more than 105 dB, then the -20 dB pad is used to raise the
maximum level to 125 dB SPL for the same 95 dB s/n ratio.


BTW

The vast majority of balanced mic pre-amps have continuously variable
internal GAIN - not merely attenuation at the input or output. The
voltage amplification is varied by a simple rotary control over a range of
about 50 dB - ie from 3 times to 1000 times the signal appearing at the
input.




......... Phil

"Pawel Kusmierek" wrote in message
ups.com
** Then download the Owner's Manual and read it all.

Ok I read it and there is still one thing I am not sure
about. And mummy cannot explain it .
Can anybody please follow my reasoning, tell me if it is
OK, and also answer the final question please?

So, here it goes:
Normally, the mic input sensitivity of PMD671 is 1.2mV
and noise is -65dB, which equals 0.67 uV.

Let's assume that I am using Schoeps MK41+CMC6xt, whose
sensitivity is 13mV/Pa.

This means that the mic provides 0.26uV at 0dBSPL. At
8.25 dBSPL the mic provides
0,67 uV - this means that with this mic the pre-amp's
noise is equivalent to 8.25 dB SPL, which of course would
be very good. Actually the mic's noise is higher at most
of the freuquency band.

IOW, the PMD 671 preamp has an equivalent noise level with
the Schoeps mic of 8.25 dB

But, the Schoeps reaches 1.2 mV at 73.25 dB SPL. So, to
record a louder sound I must adjust Marantz's gain to
avoid overload.

At this point the signal-to-noise level of the preamp is 65
dB.

Let's assume that I decrease gain by 20 dB, either with
the MIC ATTEN switch, or with the REC LEVEL knob.

Note that these are two different ways to set record levels,
with significantly different outcomes.

If you use the Mic ATTEN switch, you decrease the signal
coming into the preamp by 20 dB.

IOW, the PMD 671 preamp with a 20 dB input attenuator has an
equivalent noise level with the Schoeps mic of 28.25 dB, not
8.25 dB. At a SPL at the Schoeps mic of 73.25 dB the
signal-to-noise level of the recorder is 45 dB, which is not
good.

However, if you use the record level control to set the
recording level, you reduce both the noise and the signal
coming out of the preamp.

Let's move up to a SPL at the Schoeps mic of 93.25 dB.

Instead of using the Mic ATTEN you use the REC LEVEL
control, and furthermore let's assume that the mic preamp is
not clipping.

You have cut the output of the PMD671 preamp by 20 dB with
the REC LEVEL control.
At a SPL at the Schoeps mic of 93.25 dB and the record level
set using the REC LEVEL control the signal-to-noise level of
the recorder is 85 dB, which is very good.

In contrast, let's consider what happens if you use the Mic
ATTEN switch under the same conditions.

You have cut the input of the PMD671 preamp by 20 dB with
the Mic ATTEN control.
At a SPL at the Schoeps mic of 93.25 dB and the record level
set using the Mic ATTEN control the signal-to-noise level
of the recorder is 65 dB, which is not good at all.


Now, if sound level is 93.25 dB SPL and Schoeps produces
12 mV, this voltage is reduced by 20 dB to 1.2 mV so PMD
can handle it.

All correct until know?

If yes, here is the final question:

What happens to the preamp noise? In other words, is gain
controlled before or after the preamp?

A Rec LEVEL control is generally positioned after the mic
preamp because it is there to control the recording level
from any and all inputs, whether mic inputs or line inputs.

The third kind of level setting control is a mic preamp gain
control, which is apparently not implemented in the PMD671.

I would guess that gain is controlled before the preamp -
this makes sense if we want to avoid preamp overload.

No, that is what a Mic ATTEN control would do.

The purpose of a Rec LEVEL control is to avoid overload of
the recording circuits.

If this is true, then the noise is still 0.67 uV, which is
still 65 dB below the signal, which is
1.2 mV after the gain reduction . In such case, the
preamp noise is now equivalent to 28.25 dB SPL which is
not so good.

Agreed.

And if I want to record a sound which peaks
at 113.25 dB SPL, then I need to reduce gain by another
20 dB, and the preamp noise would be equivalent to 48.25
dB SPL.

You'd have to add an external 20 dB mic attenuator.

Another possibility is that gain is reduced after the
preamp. If this was true, then the preamp noise would be
reduced along with the signal. For 20 dB reduction
(necessary to record a 93.25 SPL sound as 1.2 mV), the
noise would be reduced to 0.067 uV, which would be still
equivalent to 8.25 dB SPL.

See my comments above, but basically agreed.

And the actual S/N ratio would
be 85 dB, and 105 dB for the 40 dB gain reduction.

At some point, the limiting factor becomes some other part
of the system.

I think that this not the case because of two reasons:
1. As I said above, I understand that the whole gain
thing is aimed at avoiding preamp overload, so gain
should be reduced before the preamp.

Not necessarily. Gain should be reduced as close as possible
to the recording circuits until there are problems with the
mic preamp overloading. That appears to be what the Rec
LEVEL control does. That's what Rec LEVEL controls generally
do.

The usual problem with Rec LEVEL controls is that if you
turn them down too far, there's clipping in the mic preamp.
However, if you only turn a Rec LEVEL control modestly,
there will be no problems with clipping in the mic preamp.

2. Why should they advertise the recorder's S/N as 65 dB,
if it can reach 85 or 105 dB.

The 65 dB number is a conservative specification. They've
established it under a worst case situation.

"Segensreich Maschinerich"

** Human excreta.


Pawel, not to put too fine a point on it, but: I think you are wasting
your time trying to understand the convoluted processes that have to
pass as Mr Allison's "thinking."


** Go find some 5 or 6 year old at the back of a public toilet.

Do what you invariably do to him /her.

Burn in ****ing HELL forever for your CRIME.




.......... Phil

Arny, thank for your excellent explanation. The Marantz recorder seems
to be not as bad as I thought before :-)

And the actual S/N ratio would
be 85 dB, and 105 dB for the 40 dB gain reduction.

At some point, the limiting factor becomes some other part
of the system.

Apparently, some important information is lacking from the PMD671
specs. That is, at what voltage would the 'other parts' or 'recording
circuits' overload? (In the case of digital recorder, this question is,
I guess, equivalent to: To what voltage is 0 dBFS equivalent?)
Or can it be derived from the dynamic range reported as 94 dB?

It would be also nice to know what is the range of gain control with
the REC LEVEL knob...
Without that data, one cannot predict what is the highest SPL level
recordable with the device and a given mic, using REC LEVEL only. Or,
using both REC LEVEL and MIC ATTN. This is a piece of information I
really need.

The usual problem with Rec LEVEL controls is that if you
turn them down too far, there's clipping in the mic preamp.

Sorry, I'm afraid I don't understand. How can Rec LEVEL influence
what's happening on the preceding stage?



In comparison to PMD671, the Core Sounds Mic2496 device (which I am
also considering to use) seems to be described much better (anybody
wants to look and check my calculations again?):

Gain: 13 to 53 dB (nominal)
Input level for 0 dBFS: 575 mV rms (typical, at minimum gain setting), higher with external attenuators

This means - as far as I understand - that the gain control range is
40 dB, and that 0dBFS is equivalent to 2.57 V after the preamp (13 dB
re 575mV). At the highest gain range, the device will clip (0 dBFS)
when mic provides 5.75 mV. (-40dB re 575 mV). I can translate it into
maximum SPL levels (with the 13dB/Pa Schoeps mic): 126.9 dB SPL for the
lowest gain setting, and 86.9 dB SPL for the highest gain setting.
Looks fine - I expect to have quite loud sharp transients.

And noise level is shown as -135 dB re 0 dBFS. As I guess, this is in
the lowest gain setting, and in the highest gain setting it would be
-95 dB re 0 dBFS . With Schoeps, it translates to -8.1 dB SPL: quite
impressive!

Even better: Marantz's noise figure is A-weighted, and Mic2496's is,
apparently, unweighted. [The problem with Mic2496 is that the figures
are provided as 'typical' - does it mean that one cannot complain if
one buys it and the particular device's noise level is -100 dB instead
of -135 dB?]

Still, Mic2496 apparently does not provide headphone monitoring (unless
I wait until November for HeadLine and pay additional $350 and have
another box to carry) and provides only just enough current for a
single Shoeps mic (4 mA total - or is it 4 mA per channel??? Does not
look like) - unless I wait until November for 2Phant and pay additional
$275, and have another box to carry.. Or simply wait until November and
get 4Mic... But I can't wait, unfortunately. (Actually, so far I want
to use a single Schoeps mic, but I may want to extend it later).

So, my choices for a 40kHz single channel high quality portable digital
recording systems have been narrowed to two:

1. A mic (most likely, Schoeps MK41+CMS6xt) plus Marantz PMD671
Pros: single box, very portable, would probably work even with two mics
if I need to expand, headphone monitoring available
Cons: quite noisy, some specs uncertain

2. A mic (same as above) + Mic2496 + a laptop with an S/PDIF input.
Pros: not noisy, good specs, and it's economical because I have a
laptop
Cons: not very portable, two boxes (or three if I don't find a PCMCIA
24/96 S/PDIF interface - so far I have found M-Audio Transit, which is
USB - any unexpensive suggestions for this?), would drive only one mic
- not expandable.

As I need to decide and order early next week, I am looking forward for
your advice :-)

The usual problem with Rec LEVEL controls is that if you
turn them down too far, there's clipping in the mic preamp.

Sorry, I'm afraid I don't understand. How can Rec LEVEL influence
what's happening on the preceding stage?

Or do you just mean that there is no point of turning them down to
accomodate for a very loud sound because the sound will overload the
previous stage (the preamp) anyway? Which is dangerous beacuse I
wouldn't see it in clip indicators?

On 14 Oct 2005 20:06:58 -0700, "Pawel Kusmierek"
wrote:

Or do you just mean that there is no point of turning them down to
accomodate for a very loud sound because the sound will overload the
previous stage (the preamp) anyway? Which is dangerous because I
wouldn't see it in clip indicators?

Bingo!

Chris Hornbeck

"and thus it's your EXPECTATIONS exceding the homeosonic design
limitations that you're misinterpreting..." -SSJV

"Pawel Kusmierek" wrote in message
ups.com
The usual problem with Rec LEVEL controls is that if you
turn them down too far, there's clipping in the mic
preamp.

Sorry, I'm afraid I don't understand. How can Rec LEVEL
influence what's happening on the preceding stage?

Or do you just mean that there is no point of turning
them down to accomodate for a very loud sound because the
sound will overload the previous stage (the preamp)
anyway? Which is dangerous beacuse I wouldn't see it in
clip indicators?

Yes, that's it. If you turn the record level down too far
in order to accomodate loud sounds, there's a good chance
that the mic preamps are clipping due to the loud sounds. If
the only clipping indicators your recorder has follow
amplification in the recorder, its possible that
amplification is clipping. The better mic preamps have
clipping indicators that report clipping in their input
stages.