Jake Kalyta wrote:

Ok. I've been reading posts here and am confused by xlr and 1/4" jacks.The
only xlr microphones I was familiar with was a couple of old electovoice
studio mics and worked fine in an old compatible PA system.When we
upgraded back in the eighties eveyting wanted 1/4" jacks. These were low
impedance microphones and needed line transformers to boost the power for
these newer amplifiers. All our high impedence mics with 1/4" jacks worked
fine.

That might not have really been much of an upgrade. There were a lot of
those PA "heads" around in the 80s (and 70s & 60s). Sometime in the 80s
you started seeing both XLR & HiZ 1/4" inputs. While not truly "Pro"
units, they got the job done. Many are still in service, like my PV
XR-400b, which still sees regular use.


Most condenser mics require phantom power.Does a mic preamp supply
phantom power?

Many condenser mics require phantom power, and most decent ones do.
Phantom usually comes from the preamp (or the built-in preamp on the mixer
channel), but there are stand alone power units if the preamp doesn't have
phantom, or doesn't provide enough voltage or current.


My recording unit wants 1/4" jacks. Would xlr to 1/4" line
transformer suffice?

Depends on the recorder. You need to check the manual. Some cassette
decks & older reel-to-reel units have 1/4" mic inputs, but my guess is
you're looking at 1/4" TRS line inputs. If that's the case, you need a
preamp between the mics & recorder.


I stopped in at Long & McQuade and if I could purchase a couple of those
md 421's listing for $499.00 Can. I wouldn't be asking these questions.


Markertek has them for $319. Full Compass is probably a little cheaper.
They're nice mics, but I'm not sure how you think they would be the answer
to all your questions.

I am not sure that I can get enough gain on my mt-400 to even satisfy the
200 ohm impedence rating of even these.

I'm not sure what a mt-400 is. Gain & mic impedence aren't directly
related.


I am recording a choir accompanied by a keyboard, piano, 6 & 12 string
guitars and bass track added later. I have two cheap dynamics and would
like to add a large diaphram condenser such as marshall 770, apex 430 or
oktava 319 in a decca tree config.Can this be done with reasonable results
for around $200.00.

Can what be done for around $200? Recording a choir, keys, guitars & bass?
Probably. Buying a decent large diaphragm condenser? Probably not.
Getting a good recording od a choir & varoius instruments with two cheap
dynamics & a cheap large condenser on a Decca tree? Maybe, but it wouldn't
be my preferred approach.

Good luck. It might help if you could clarify your questions just a bit.

Jake Kalyta wrote:
Ok. I've been reading posts here and am confused by xlr and 1/4" jacks.The
only xlr microphones I was familiar with was a couple of old electovoice
studio mics and worked fine in an old compatible PA system.When we upgraded
back in the eighties eveyting wanted 1/4" jacks. These were low impedance
microphones and needed line transformers to boost the power for these newer
amplifiers. All our high impedence mics with 1/4" jacks worked fine.

That sure doesn't sound like an upgrade to me. That definitely sounds like
downgrading to cheap consumer gear.

Most condenser mics require phantom power.Does a mic preamp supply
phantom power? My recording unit wants 1/4" jacks. Would xlr to 1/4" line
transformer suffice?

Most preamps today will supply phantom power. If your mike requires phantom
power and your preamp does not supply it, you can buy an external phantom
supply. If your input is high-Z, you will also need a step-up transformer.

I stopped in at Long & McQuade and if I could purchase a couple of those md
421's listing for $499.00 Can. I wouldn't be asking these questions. I am
not sure that I can get enough gain on my mt-400 to even satisfy the 200 ohm
impedence rating of even these.

They are not condenser microphones, and therefore do not need phantom power.
You will need a step-up transformer to drive a high-Z consumer input from
the 200 ohm source.

In the seventies, Sennheiser made a mike that used an element similar to
the 421 with a step-up transformer inside for a high-Z output. It was very
popular for ham radio operators in Europe but I have not seen one in years.

I am recording a choir accompanied by a keyboard, piano, 6 & 12 string
guitars and bass track added later. I have two cheap dynamics and would like
to add a large diaphram condenser such as marshall 770, apex 430 or oktava
319 in a decca tree config.Can this be done with reasonable results for
around $200.00.

Well, none of these mikes will work in a Decca tree configuration. Why do
you want a Decca tree to begin with? Why do you want large diaphragm mikes
for a choir? Are you willing to buy a real preamp with normal XLR inputs?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Jake Kalyta wrote:

Say hi to agent 99 for me. But, back to my question. First though a
little clarification. This recording is strictly a hobby and the recording
is for posterity. Prior to my joining the group the recording was done on
your regular ghetto blaster with internal electret mic. I borrowed a tape,
put on headphones and thought I'd give it a listen. Ouch!!!!! It sounded
like someone recording heavy machinery at work. There was also some voices
in the background but not distinguishable. so, I brought in my Yamaha
mt-400 multitraker with two cheap dynamics and that was a giant leap
forward. So much so that two other groups have expressed interest in being
recorded. I would like to improve clarity and detail and was leaning
towards a condenser studio mic. I would like to continue using my porta
studio for live recordings but my microphones need to be upgraded. Should
I move toward better dynamic mics or toward condenser? Would a pair of
sm-58's do the job?

OK, I checked Yamahas site & it looks like the MT400 has the old style 1/4"
Hi-Z mic inputs. So to use Low-Z mics, you will need a transformer. The
Shure ones are better than the Radio Shack ones, but they do cost a bit
more. Alternatively, you could use an outboard preamp & go into the
Yamaha's line inputs. If you get a decent preamp, this will probably be a
big sonic improvement, but a decent preamp will cost a good bit more than
the Shure transformers. If the budget allows, look a something like a
Mackie 1202 VLZ or the Behringer equivalent. That's as much preamp as
you'll ever need for a cassette 4-track, & it'll still be usefull if you
switch to digital later on.

Now regarding mics... Assuming the "cheap dynamics" you have are not
capable of doing the job, my stock advice to anybody looking for their
first mic is to get an SM57. For your second mic, if you need to do
realtime stereo recording, get another 57, otherwise, consider an EV 635a.
These will set you back less than $100 each & will cover a lot of ground.

All things being equal, you are correct in thinking that condenser mics
will have more clarity and detail than dynamics. But, of course, all
things are seldom truly equal. There are a plethora of cheap condensers on
the market these days. Many of them suck. In the long run, you'll get
more mileage from a good dynamic than a cheap condenser.

But you want to record a choir, & that throws a spanner in the works.
Dynamic mics typically have lower sensitivity than condensers. Plus, they
don't usually have much low end when micing distant sources. So, you just
might need to get yourself one or two SMALL diaphragm condensers. I've
been using AT 4051s & I like them a lot. They're not Neumanns, but their
not exactly budget either. A lot of folks around here like the Marshall
603s & the Oktava MC012s (get your Oktavas from the Sound Room, because
Oktava has some consistency problems). The new Rode NT5 & NT4 have been
mentioned favorable as well. I won't make a recommendation for any of
these mics, since I haven't used them. Hopefully, some other folks who
have will chime in. If you can fit the 4051s into your budget, I'm sure
you'll like them.

I'd advise you to wait about a large diaphram condenser for a while. By
design, they are not consistent off-axis, which limits their usefullness
for choirs & such. And everything I said about cheap, sucky small
condensers goes double for large ones. You'll probably want to get one (or
more) later on, but if I understood your question, you're looking for
maximum versatility at this point.

As far as 58's, you probably wouldn't be happy with them as your only mics.
The big wire mesh & foam ball does some wierd stuff to the frequency
response & makes them not very suitable for most instruments. I like them
on guitar amps now & then, but you'll find the 57s are much more versatile
(and cheaper).

Wow... now you're talking my lingo. This is great info and gives me some
direction without having to dump a few grand into recording equipment. Not
that it would break me but would definately put me in the doghouse.(wife
wants new floors in the house) . That's two in favor of small diameter
condensers so I will definately check this out. I also like the sm57 idea as
they will never go to waste. I want easy portability. Thanks again and now I
have some homework to do.


But you want to record a choir, & that throws a spanner in the works.
Dynamic mics typically have lower sensitivity than condensers. Plus, they
don't usually have much low end when micing distant sources. So, you just
might need to get yourself one or two SMALL diaphragm condensers. I've
been using AT 4051s & I like them a lot. They're not Neumanns, but their
not exactly budget either. A lot of folks around here like the Marshall
603s & the Oktava MC012s (get your Oktavas from the Sound Room, because
Oktava has some consistency problems). The new Rode NT5 & NT4 have been
mentioned favorable as well. I won't make a recommendation for any of
these mics, since I haven't used them. Hopefully, some other folks who
have will chime in. If you can fit the 4051s into your budget, I'm sure
you'll like them.

I'd advise you to wait about a large diaphram condenser for a while. By
design, they are not consistent off-axis, which limits their usefullness
for choirs & such. And everything I said about cheap, sucky small
condensers goes double for large ones. You'll probably want to get one
(or
more) later on, but if I understood your question, you're looking for
maximum versatility at this point.

As far as 58's, you probably wouldn't be happy with them as your only
mics.
The big wire mesh & foam ball does some wierd stuff to the frequency
response & makes them not very suitable for most instruments. I like them
on guitar amps now & then, but you'll find the 57s are much more versatile
(and cheaper).

Jake Kalyta wrote:


Wow... now you're talking my lingo. This is great info and gives me some
direction without having to dump a few grand into recording equipment. Not
that it would break me but would definately put me in the doghouse.(wife
wants new floors in the house) .

Talk her into hardwood. Make her think it was her idea. Don't tell her
how great hardwood sounds under acoustic strings, grand pianos, & drums.

"Jake Kalyta" wrote in message
...

Wow... now you're talking my lingo. This is great info and gives me some
direction without having to dump a few grand into recording equipment. Not
that it would break me but would definately put me in the doghouse.(wife
wants new floors in the house) . That's two in favor of small diameter
condensers so I will definately check this out. I also like the sm57 idea
as
they will never go to waste. I want easy portability. Thanks again and now
I
have some homework to do.

Make that three. I've used Oktava MC012's (= MK012's) on a children's choir
with excellent results. I set them up in ORTF -- capsules angled outwards at
110 degrees, spaced 7" apart.

Peace,
Paul

"Paul Stamler" wrote ...
Make that three. I've used Oktava MC012's (= MK012's) on a
children's choir with excellent results. I set them up in ORTF --
capsules angled outwards at 110 degrees, spaced 7" apart.

Oktava 012s are available with three different capsules, omni,
cardioid, and hypercardioid. Might be useful to state which of
those are used in your example.

Ok. I've been reading posts here and am confused by xlr and 1/4" jacks.The
only xlr microphones I was familiar with was a couple of old electovoice
studio mics and worked fine in an old compatible PA system.

I have never seen any microphone without XLR. How would you even have a 1/4
plug on the butt end of a microphone? How would you connect a mic cable to
it?

Unless you are referring to old tape recorder microphones that cost around $5,
it is puzzling where you find mics without XLR connections on them.

When we upgraded
back in the eighties eveyting wanted 1/4" jacks. These were low impedance
microphones and needed line transformers to boost the power for these newer
amplifiers.

"low impedance" does not mean it puts out less "power" than high impedance
microphones, it just means the IMPEDANCE is lower, which is a good thing.
Thus why you don't see any professional "high impedance" microphones anywhere.

Most condenser mics require phantom power.Does a mic preamp supply
phantom power? My recording unit wants 1/4" jacks.

How the hell are you going to get phantom power with a 1/4 jack? (considering
you are probably talking about 2 conductor 1/4 jacks here anyway)

I am recording a choir

Why doesn't this surprise us?

guitars and bass track added later. I have two cheap dynamics and would like
to add a large diaphram condenser such as marshall 770, apex 430 or oktava
319 in a decca tree config.Can this be done with reasonable results for
around $200.00.

To record a choir, you don't need more than a $10 tape recorder with a free mic
included.

"Truth" wrote in message
...
Ok. I've been reading posts here and am confused by xlr and 1/4"
jacks.The
only xlr microphones I was familiar with was a couple of old electovoice
studio mics and worked fine in an old compatible PA system.

I have never seen any microphone without XLR. How would you even have a
1/4
plug on the butt end of a microphone? How would you connect a mic cable
to
it?

Unless you are referring to old tape recorder microphones that cost around
$5,
it is puzzling where you find mics without XLR connections on them.

When we upgraded
back in the eighties eveyting wanted 1/4" jacks. These were low impedance
microphones and needed line transformers to boost the power for these
newer
amplifiers.

"low impedance" does not mean it puts out less "power" than high impedance
microphones, it just means the IMPEDANCE is lower, which is a good thing.
Thus why you don't see any professional "high impedance" microphones
anywhere.

Most condenser mics require phantom power.Does a mic preamp supply
phantom power? My recording unit wants 1/4" jacks.

How the hell are you going to get phantom power with a 1/4 jack?
(considering
you are probably talking about 2 conductor 1/4 jacks here anyway)

I am recording a choir

Why doesn't this surprise us?

guitars and bass track added later. I have two cheap dynamics and would
like
to add a large diaphram condenser such as marshall 770, apex 430 or
oktava
319 in a decca tree config.Can this be done with reasonable results for
around $200.00.

To record a choir, you don't need more than a $10 tape recorder with a
free mic
included.

Tell us more about your experience. I find many of your assertions curious
and your attitude abrasive.

Steve King

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...
"Paul Stamler" wrote ...
Make that three. I've used Oktava MC012's (= MK012's) on a
children's choir with excellent results. I set them up in ORTF --
capsules angled outwards at 110 degrees, spaced 7" apart.

Oktava 012s are available with three different capsules, omni,
cardioid, and hypercardioid. Might be useful to state which of
those are used in your example.

Sorry -- cardioid.

Peace,
Paul

"Paul Stamler" wrote ...
Make that three. I've used Oktava MC012's (= MK012's) on a
children's choir with excellent results. I set them up in ORTF --
capsules angled outwards at 110 degrees, spaced 7" apart.

Oktava 012s are available with three different capsules, omni,
cardioid, and hypercardioid. Might be useful to state which of
those are used in your example.



ORTF by definition uses cardioid capsules.

If you are using hypwrcardioids, the angle is closer to 103 degrees, but that
is not ORTF. and the spacing will be wider.
Richard H. Kuschel
"I canna change the law of physics."-----Scotty

Richard Kuschel wrote:
"Paul Stamler" wrote ...
Make that three. I've used Oktava MC012's (= MK012's) on a
children's choir with excellent results. I set them up in ORTF --
capsules angled outwards at 110 degrees, spaced 7" apart.

Oktava 012s are available with three different capsules, omni,
cardioid, and hypercardioid. Might be useful to state which of
those are used in your example.

ORTF by definition uses cardioid capsules.

If you are using hypwrcardioids, the angle is closer to 103 degrees, but that
is not ORTF. and the spacing will be wider.

Although I should say that the Oktava 012 hypercardioids are wider than a
lot of regular cardioids that I have used. In spite of the rear lobe.
I'd probably call the "cardioid" capsule a supercardioid.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

I'm still following this thread and thought I'd update where I'm at. The
635 and 57 are out. I felt that going this route will only give me more of
what I already have.
Will go the route of the condensers with a mackie preamp but am leaning
toward a behringer mic2200. What are your thoughts here? Now I need to
decide if I can go with one condenser and use my pair of dynamics to record
three tracks or to go with a stereo pair on two tracks. If one then I will
likely go with the 012. A matched stereo pair of those Oktavas with shock
mounts is fairly pricey for my budget. If two, will likely opt for the
603s's. Would like some input here.
And if "truth" is still out there...... believe it or not, they do make an
adaptor that sticks on to the butt end of an xlr microphone and you can just
plug your instrument cord right into it like you would a guitar.


"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Richard Kuschel wrote:
"Paul Stamler" wrote ...
Make that three. I've used Oktava MC012's (= MK012's) on a
children's choir with excellent results. I set them up in ORTF --
capsules angled outwards at 110 degrees, spaced 7" apart.

Oktava 012s are available with three different capsules, omni,
cardioid, and hypercardioid. Might be useful to state which of
those are used in your example.

ORTF by definition uses cardioid capsules.

If you are using hypwrcardioids, the angle is closer to 103 degrees, but
that
is not ORTF. and the spacing will be wider.

Although I should say that the Oktava 012 hypercardioids are wider than a
lot of regular cardioids that I have used. In spite of the rear lobe.
I'd probably call the "cardioid" capsule a supercardioid.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Jake Kalyta wrote:

I'm still following this thread and thought I'd update where I'm at. The
635 and 57 are out. I felt that going this route will only give me more of
what I already have.
Will go the route of the condensers with a mackie preamp but am leaning
toward a behringer mic2200. What are your thoughts here?

Isn't that one of those fake toob thingies? If you only need two channels
of mic preamp, & you really want Behringer, get a UB802. The pres are
decent. You don't get inserts or direct outs, but the signal path's so
short it won't matter much. And you get a pretty cool little mini-mixer at
no extra charge. It's also one of the few Behringer products I've used
that didn't feel like it would break if you looked at it funny.


Now I need to
decide if I can go with one condenser and use my pair of dynamics to
record three tracks or to go with a stereo pair on two tracks. If one then
I will likely go with the 012. A matched stereo pair of those Oktavas with
shock mounts is fairly pricey for my budget. If two, will likely opt for
the 603s's. Would like some input here.

You still haven't told us what your pair of dynamics is. If they sound
good to you, then use them. If at some point in the future the stop
sounding good, think about the 57 & 635a again.

BUT, if you want to record the choir in stereo, you need to get two
condensers. If your heart's still set on that Decca tree thing, then get
three, and get the Octavas with the omni capsules. Personally, I'd try an
ORTF of XY first. That way you can use cardioids (so you can go with the
603s & stay within your budget). If you spend some time experimenting with
placement, you'll probably find something you like.

Shine on the shock mounts for now. Just tell everybody to be still during
the take. Or make your own with some stout rubber bands & 2" PVC plumbing
parts.

And if "truth" is still out there...... believe it or not, they do make an
adaptor that sticks on to the butt end of an xlr microphone and you can just
plug your instrument cord right into it like you would a guitar.


Yes, they do make such an animal. It is designed to convert a low impedance
signal into a high impedance signal.

If you really need a high impedance signal, it would be better to run the low
impedance signal from the microphone through a regular mic cable and leave the
impedance transformer as close to the mixer as possible. You can't really run a
high impedance signal at mic level for more than about 20 feet without
noticable degredation or noisse pickup.

I have also seen microphones with a 1/4" jack on them. They were supplied on a
cheapie lecturn amplification system.
Richard H. Kuschel
"I canna change the law of physics."-----Scotty

Ok..... I.m sold. The ub802 it is. And the pair of 603s's. I tried the
decca tree thing and didn't like it anyway. Basically muted the center
channel out during the mixdown trying to get some definition and at least a
semblance of stereo imaging. We don't have three ears so why confuse the
brain into trying to decifer impossible acoustics.
Now.... about those dynamics....er..uh.... (this is embarassing)... they are
the no name brand of sm58 wannabe's that come packaged with those $150.00
karaoke machines that they have been churning out by the thousands.
And that fake toob thingie. Maybe I should route the signal through my old
traynor bass head. Lots of real vacume tubes in that baby. What would be the
point of warming up the sound and then freezing it to digital.
Anyway, thanks loads Scott, Paul and Max....er.. Agent 86.


"agent86" wrote in message
...
Jake Kalyta wrote:

I'm still following this thread and thought I'd update where I'm at. The
635 and 57 are out. I felt that going this route will only give me more
of
what I already have.
Will go the route of the condensers with a mackie preamp but am leaning
toward a behringer mic2200. What are your thoughts here?

Isn't that one of those fake toob thingies? If you only need two channels
of mic preamp, & you really want Behringer, get a UB802. The pres are
decent. You don't get inserts or direct outs, but the signal path's so
short it won't matter much. And you get a pretty cool little mini-mixer
at
no extra charge. It's also one of the few Behringer products I've used
that didn't feel like it would break if you looked at it funny.


Now I need to
decide if I can go with one condenser and use my pair of dynamics to
record three tracks or to go with a stereo pair on two tracks. If one
then
I will likely go with the 012. A matched stereo pair of those Oktavas
with
shock mounts is fairly pricey for my budget. If two, will likely opt for
the 603s's. Would like some input here.

You still haven't told us what your pair of dynamics is. If they sound
good to you, then use them. If at some point in the future the stop
sounding good, think about the 57 & 635a again.

BUT, if you want to record the choir in stereo, you need to get two
condensers. If your heart's still set on that Decca tree thing, then get
three, and get the Octavas with the omni capsules. Personally, I'd try an
ORTF of XY first. That way you can use cardioids (so you can go with the
603s & stay within your budget). If you spend some time experimenting
with
placement, you'll probably find something you like.

Shine on the shock mounts for now. Just tell everybody to be still during
the take. Or make your own with some stout rubber bands & 2" PVC plumbing
parts.