How to connect MXL 990 mic to a PC?

[Fritz]

I am interested in interfacing an MXL 990 mic to my laptop. Can anyone
give me advice on what might be needed here. I am trying to keep costs
under $100 for equipment in addition to the microphone-not interested
in hi-tech mixers here.
My understanding is that a mixer can be used which provides the
"phantom" or "shadow" power, but I have also heard there are other
less sophisticated/expensive interfaces.
Would the device connect to the headphones jack on the PC or do I
need a special card?

Thanks
Fritz

[Scott Dorsey]

Fritz > wrote:
>I am interested in interfacing an MXL 990 mic to my laptop. Can anyone
>give me advice on what might be needed here. I am trying to keep costs
>under $100 for equipment in addition to the microphone-not interested
>in hi-tech mixers here.


You need to provide power for the mike. You need to amplify the signal
about 40 dB. You need to convert it to a digital data stream. You
need to convert that data stream to USB for the laptop.

You can do this with one box, or you can do it with five different boxes
or other various combinations.

> My understanding is that a mixer can be used which provides the
>"phantom" or "shadow" power, but I have also heard there are other
>less sophisticated/expensive interfaces.

The problem is that the USB bus does not provide enough power to
build a proper phantom supply. So the manufacturer of such an interface
can either overload the buss, use a lower than acceptable phantom voltage,
or use external power.

> Would the device connect to the headphones jack on the PC or do I
>need a special card?

The headphone jack is an output.

I think the cheapest combination I would consider acceptable for noncritical
use would be the $200 Lavry Engineering preamp+converter+usb interface box.
You will also need a phantom power supply for around $100 on top of that.

There are cheaper alternatives but they cut too many corners to be
trusted.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

On Apr 7, 5:19 pm, "Fritz" > wrote:
> I am interested in interfacing an MXL 990 mic to my laptop. Can anyone
> give me advice on what might be needed here. I am trying to keep costs
> under $100 for equipment in addition to the microphone-not interested
> in hi-tech mixers here.

You need an M-Audio Audio Buddy. It's a mic preamp with phantom power
that, with the appropriate cable, you can connect to the Line Input
jack on your computer. It's two channels, so it'll accommodate a
second mic when you decide to get fancy. $79.95 right here:
http://www.musiciansfriend.com/product/MAudio-Audio-Buddy?sku=701104

You'll need a cable with a stereo mini phone plug on one end and two
1/4" phone plugs on the other. I'm not sure where you can buy exactly
that, but you can put one together from a Radio Shack cable and a
couple of adapters.

I saw a gadget at the NAMM show that would solve your problem
elegantly but I'll be darned if I can remember who made it. I was
thinking MXL but I don't see it on their web site. Maybe it's not
available yet. It's an adapter with a USB cable on one end and an XLR
connector on the other. It's a mic preamp, phantom power supply, and A/
D converter all powered off the USB port. Maybe some more clever on-
line searcher can find it.

> Would the device connect to the headphones jack on the PC or do I
> need a special card?

Close, but no cigar. The headphone jack is an ouptut, but there should
be a similar jack next to it that's for inputs.

[John L Rice]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Fritz > wrote:
>>I am interested in interfacing an MXL 990 mic to my laptop. Can anyone
>>give me advice on what might be needed here. I am trying to keep costs
>>under $100 for equipment in addition to the microphone-not interested
>>in hi-tech mixers here.
>
>
> You need to provide power for the mike. You need to amplify the signal
> about 40 dB. You need to convert it to a digital data stream. You
> need to convert that data stream to USB for the laptop.
>
> You can do this with one box, or you can do it with five different boxes
> or other various combinations.
>
>> My understanding is that a mixer can be used which provides the
>>"phantom" or "shadow" power, but I have also heard there are other
>>less sophisticated/expensive interfaces.
>
> The problem is that the USB bus does not provide enough power to
> build a proper phantom supply. So the manufacturer of such an interface
> can either overload the buss, use a lower than acceptable phantom voltage,
> or use external power.
>
>> Would the device connect to the headphones jack on the PC or do I
>>need a special card?
>
> The headphone jack is an output.
>
> I think the cheapest combination I would consider acceptable for
> noncritical
> use would be the $200 Lavry Engineering preamp+converter+usb interface
> box.
> You will also need a phantom power supply for around $100 on top of that.
>
> There are cheaper alternatives but they cut too many corners to be
> trusted.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

As always, Scot gives good advice for doing quality recording. See
www.lavryengineering.com/productspage_computer_audio.html

Does your laptop have a line-in or mic input? If it does you can skip the
USB part although these inputs are not know for their quality.

You can get some inexpensive solutions made by ART. I have an inexpensive
mic pre made by them (the first generation Tube MP ) and I don't like it at
all except maybe as a bass DI. I do have one of their "Clean Box" impedance
converter boxes and it works nicely for being so cheap. I mention all this
because ART makes an all in one Mic pre with phantom power to USB which you
can pick up new for under $100.
(www.artproaudio.com/products.asp?type=79&cat=1&id=124) I've never used one
so research before you buy one. ART also Rolls make inexpensive phantom
supplies (under $40 street)

From my limited experience with ART, the inexpensive PreSonus and Symetrix
mic pres sound a lot better.

I've never used any of the MAudio USB solutions but they have some items
that come close to your price range. Be sure to check Ebay for some deals.

Best of luck.

John L Rice

[Fritz]

Thank you All.
Please understand that I am new to this and I know very little about
the terminology of audio recording devices.
John-basically I am recording violin solos with both my laptop
and desktop. The latter has line-in and line-out ports, the laptop
only has a mic port. I chose the MXL 990 mic since that is the low-end
mic most favored by violin makers.
I found the "ART Tube MP " which you mentioned for $40 (http://
www.zzounds.com/item--ART127) but it does not mention anything about
USB. It does mention XLR and 1/4 in. inputs and outputs. Am I to
understand that I can attached the MXL 990 to the Tube MP , then to my
line-in on the desktop unit and begin recording with appropriate
software?

Thanks
Fritz

[Scott Dorsey]

Fritz > wrote:
>Thank you All.
> Please understand that I am new to this and I know very little about
>the terminology of audio recording devices.

The FAQ has some information although it's very dated really and needs to
be updated.

> John-basically I am recording violin solos with both my laptop
>and desktop. The latter has line-in and line-out ports, the laptop
>only has a mic port. I chose the MXL 990 mic since that is the low-end
>mic most favored by violin makers.

Yeesh.... the 990 does not strike me as a microphone I'd want to use on
violin... the top end is very pitched up and shriely, really. But if you
like it, go for it.

> I found the "ART Tube MP " which you mentioned for $40 (http://
>www.zzounds.com/item--ART127) but it does not mention anything about
>USB. It does mention XLR and 1/4 in. inputs and outputs. Am I to
>understand that I can attached the MXL 990 to the Tube MP , then to my
>line-in on the desktop unit and begin recording with appropriate
>software?

Yes. But, you will be stuck using a pretty nasty sounding preamp and whatever
the converters in your desktop soundcard are like. I suspect you will not
be pleased with either of these.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Richard Crowley]

"Fritz" wrote ...
> Thank you All.
> Please understand that I am new to this and I know very little about
> the terminology of audio recording devices.
> John-basically I am recording violin solos with both my laptop
> and desktop. The latter has line-in and line-out ports,

At minimum, you would need something like the AudioBuddy
mic preamp which would provide the phantom power for the
microphone, and boost the signal to "line-level" to go into the
line-in on your desktop computer.

>the laptop only has a mic port.

The microphone ports on laptops are the lowest known
form of mic preamps (except maybe your telephone). Not
recommended for anything remotely related to music.

Certainly, using a device that converts the audio to
digital externally (and connects with USB, etc.) would
be "cleaner" than the audio system in most computers.
But for simple rehearsal recording/playback, etc. maybe
the computer sound system is adequate for your needs.

> I chose the MXL 990 mic since that is the low-end
> mic most favored by violin makers.

I wouldn't take violin advice from most audio engineers,
and taking microphone advice from violin makers seems
to make no more sense. I'm sure they mean well, but
its just not their area of expertiese (unless they are also
recording engineers.)

If you want to describe exactly how you want to use the
microphone and clearly state your budget, you may get
some advice on microphone selection here that is based
on actual use recording violins.

> I found the "ART Tube MP " which you mentioned for $40 (http://
> www.zzounds.com/item--ART127) but it does not mention anything about
> USB. It does mention XLR and 1/4 in. inputs and outputs. Am I to
> understand that I can attached the MXL 990 to the Tube MP , then to my
> line-in on the desktop unit and begin recording with appropriate
> software?

I don't think he was recommending that equipment, but
only saying that he had one. It is unsuitable for your
application on several counts.

[John L Rice]

"Fritz" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Thank you All.
> Please understand that I am new to this and I know very little about
> the terminology of audio recording devices.
> John-basically I am recording violin solos with both my laptop
> and desktop. The latter has line-in and line-out ports, the laptop
> only has a mic port. I chose the MXL 990 mic since that is the low-end
> mic most favored by violin makers.
> I found the "ART Tube MP " which you mentioned for $40 (http://
> www.zzounds.com/item--ART127) but it does not mention anything about
> USB. It does mention XLR and 1/4 in. inputs and outputs. Am I to
> understand that I can attached the MXL 990 to the Tube MP , then to my
> line-in on the desktop unit and begin recording with appropriate
> software?
>
> Thanks
> Fritz

Hi Fritz,

The one I was referring to is the Tube MP - Project Series w/ USB :
http://www.artproaudio.com/products.asp?type=79&cat=1&id=124

ZZounds has them for $100:
http://www.zzounds.com/item--ARTTMPUSB

And a little less on Ebay. (watch out for shipping charges!)

And Richard is right, I wasn't saying it sounds good, I'm just saying it has
all the features you are looking for. To me my ART Tube MP (the kind that is
$40) sounds dull and lifeless to me. I do have the first version they made
and there have been several revisions since then so maybe they have
improved??? Yes, you could just get the basic ART Tube MP and use a 1/4" to
1/8" adapter cable and record on your desktop computer (actually, the line
in on your computer may be a stereo jack so, especially if you end up with
two mic pre channels you may want to get the right adapter)

If you can't afford to spend more than approx. $100 I'd recommend buying
from somewhere that has a good 30 day return policy and picking up both the
ART unit and the M-Audio unit Mike mentioned and then compare the two,
returning the one you don't like.

Keep in mind that if you can basically pick two of the following three
quantities:
1) inexpensive
2) required features
3) sounds good

Since you have already specified the features you need and a very low price,
you should expect to.

OK, here is probably as cheap as you are going to get buying brand new (and
I'm betting may sound better than the ART unit and is definitely more
versatile and will give you room to grow . . . I haven't tried either though
so . . . . ):

Behringer UCA202 USB interface (around $30 street price)
http://www.behringer.com/UCA202/index.cfm?lang=ENG
Stereo in/out plus S/PDIF optical out and headphone out with volume control.

Behringer XENYX 802 mixer (around $60 street price)
http://www.behringer.com/UB502/index.cfm?lang=ENG
2 mic pres with phantom power, 2 additional stereo input channels, CD
inputs, separate mains and control room outputs, etc, etc


Best of luck! Feel free to ask more questions!

John L Rice

[John L Rice]

Sorry, I didn't finish my sentence :

> Keep in mind that if you can basically pick two of the following three
> quantities:
> 1) inexpensive
> 2) required features
> 3) sounds good
>
> Since you have already specified the features you need and a very low
> price, you should expect to not be blown away with how good it sounds, and
> expect to be possibly very disapointed..

[anahata]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> On Apr 7, 5:19 pm, "Fritz" > wrote:
>
>>I am interested in interfacing an MXL 990 mic to my laptop.
>
> You need an M-Audio Audio Buddy.

The Audio Buddy, useful though it is, has a reputation for substandard
phantom power - I think you get about 36V.
A quick Google scan (I wouldn't exactly call it research) finds a
phantom spec for the MXL990 as the usual "48V +/- 4V".

So at least check that combination carefully before buying it.

One of those tiny Behringer mixers might be a safer bet.

--
Anahata
-+- http://www.treewind.co.uk
Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827

[Mike Rivers]

On Apr 8, 4:15 am, anahata > wrote:

> The Audio Buddy, useful though it is, has a reputation for substandard
> phantom power - I think you get about 36V.

That was the way it was originally, but I've heard that this has been
changed and it now provides the full 48V phantom power. Buy a new one
rather than an old, cheaper one and you should be OK.

> A quick Google scan (I wouldn't exactly call it research) finds a
> phantom spec for the MXL990 as the usual "48V +/- 4V".

All mics say that (except the ones that are designed to run from lower
voltages) but most mics work OK at lower voltages unless you're using
them with a loud source (which your violin isn't) and need the full
headroom. I have an MXL 990 and a Mackie Onyx Satellite which puts out
only 38V for phantom power, and I haven't found that it's any
different than when powered by 48V.

I also think that the Behringer UCA202 that John pointed out would be
an excellent companion for the Auido Buddy. In addition to probably
having better audio performance than your computer's built-in sound
card, it has a headphone output with a real volume control, which will
come in very handy. At $30, it's barely more than the cost of the
cables and adapters you'd need to connect the Audio Buddy directly to
your computer's audio input (which, as you hint, may be only a mic
input, not a mic/line input - some newer laptops are getting cheap
like that). Buy it and the Audio Buddy from Musician's Friend where
you'll get free shipping if it's over $100, and a no-hassle return
policy if it doesn't work out.

[Fritz]

Gentlemen:
OK and thanks again. Hmmm you must all be learning that musical
instrument builders are cheap.(;->
At any rate the poor acoustics in our shop coupled with bad violin
playing does'nt often mandate high grade equipment.
Usually modest recordings can get the point across to another luthier
when trading sound clips to discuss a technical problem in an
instrument.

NOW - before I reach for my credit card let me be sure that I
understand what is being said here. For a low cost, low quality system
I can buy either of the 2 options below. Is this correct?:

MXL 990 -> Audio Buddy (Preamp) -> UCA202 (A/D Converter) -> PC

MXL 990 -> TubeMP-project-serives (Preamp and A/D Converter) -> PC

I am assuming that you are all indicating that the sound card on the
PC has a poor A/D conversion characteristic, and the
devices mentioned do this outside the box. A violin probably needs
30kHz for good reproduction, so I would hope for a sample
rate of 60kHz. Not sure what the bit density would need to by however-
I think PCs have 16bit resolution. I assume the issue with the
pre-amp would be frequency clipping and flatness.

Concerning the Mic, is there another option for under 100 dollars?
Here was some of the banter that led me to the MXL 990.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.music.makers.bowed-strings/browse_thread/thread/54deab88ca91d72d/83526ace9e5eb05e?lnk=gst&q=mxl+990&rnum=1#83526ace9e5eb05e
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.music.makers.bowed-strings/browse_thread/thread/99d798b1e4691ede/5420b4bccf35ea3e?lnk=gst&q=mxl+990&rnum=2#5420b4bccf35ea3e
http://www.maestronet.com/forums/messageview.cfm?catid=3&threadid=313270&highlight_key=y&keyword1=mxl%20AND%20990

Fritz

[Richard Crowley]

"Fritz" wrote ...
> Gentlemen:
> OK and thanks again. Hmmm you must all be learning that musical
> instrument builders are cheap.(;->
> At any rate the poor acoustics in our shop coupled with bad violin
> playing does'nt often mandate high grade equipment.
> Usually modest recordings can get the point across to another luthier
> when trading sound clips to discuss a technical problem in an
> instrument.
>
> NOW - before I reach for my credit card let me be sure that I
> understand what is being said here. For a low cost, low quality system
> I can buy either of the 2 options below. Is this correct?:
>
> MXL 990 -> Audio Buddy (Preamp) -> UCA202 (A/D Converter) -> PC
>
> MXL 990 -> TubeMP-project-serives (Preamp and A/D Converter) -> PC

IMHO, there is no reason to consider any "tube" preamp. Those
inexpensive tube gadgets are gimicks at best and meant to add a
certain "coloration" to the sound. If you are trying to accurately
convey what an instrument sounds like, cheesy, intentional
coloration is the last thing you need.

I still don't see any place in the transcript where anybody
*recommended* a tube gadget. IIRC, the only person who
mentioned it (John L. Rice) specifically returned to say that
he was NOT saying that it sounded good.

> I am assuming that you are all indicating that the sound card on the
> PC has a poor A/D conversion characteristic, and the
> devices mentioned do this outside the box. A violin probably needs
> 30kHz for good reproduction, so I would hope for a sample
> rate of 60kHz.

Will anybody be listening to the sound recordings that has hearing
that even reaches 20KHz? Will they be playing the recording back
on speakers (or headphones?) that have anything beyond 20KHz?
I'd bet that 48KHz sampling (for 22KHz response) exceeds the
limits of any microphone/speaker/ears signal path. Talking about
30KHz is not consistent with your previous characterization of
"modest recordings".

> Not sure what the bit density would need to by however-
> I think PCs have 16bit resolution. I assume the issue with the
> pre-amp would be frequency clipping and flatness.

You will hear far more effect from microphone selection and
position than you will from the preamp and/or ADC.

> Concerning the Mic, is there another option for under 100 dollars?
> Here was some of the banter that led me to the MXL 990.

Note that generally speaking, large diameter condenser mics are
selected for their unique sound characteristics to make the
combination of microphone and insrument the most pleasant
in the recording. If your application is a clinical document, a
small-diameter condenser may be more appropriate.

[John Lamp]

Fritz wrote:

> Gentlemen:
> OK and thanks again. Hmmm you must all be learning that musical
> instrument builders are cheap.(;->
> At any rate the poor acoustics in our shop coupled with bad violin
> playing does'nt often mandate high grade equipment.
> Usually modest recordings can get the point across to another luthier
> when trading sound clips to discuss a technical problem in an
> instrument.
>
> NOW - before I reach for my credit card let me be sure that I
> understand what is being said here. For a low cost, low quality system
> I can buy either of the 2 options below. Is this correct?:
>
> MXL 990 -> Audio Buddy (Preamp) -> UCA202 (A/D Converter) -> PC
>
> MXL 990 -> TubeMP-project-serives (Preamp and A/D Converter) -> PC
>
> I am assuming that you are all indicating that the sound card on the
> PC has a poor A/D conversion characteristic, and the
> devices mentioned do this outside the box. A violin probably needs
> 30kHz for good reproduction, so I would hope for a sample
> rate of 60kHz. Not sure what the bit density would need to by however-
> I think PCs have 16bit resolution. I assume the issue with the
> pre-amp would be frequency clipping and flatness.
>
> Concerning the Mic, is there another option for under 100 dollars?
> Here was some of the banter that led me to the MXL 990.
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.music.makers.bowed-strings/browse_thread/thread/54deab88ca91d72d/83526ace9e5eb05e?lnk=gst&q=mxl+990&rnum=1#83526ace9e5eb05e
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.music.makers.bowed-strings/browse_thread/thread/99d798b1e4691ede/5420b4bccf35ea3e?lnk=gst&q=mxl+990&rnum=2#5420b4bccf35ea3e
> http://www.maestronet.com/forums/messageview.cfm?catid=3&threadid=313270&highlight_key=y&keyword1=mxl%20AND%20990

Fritz, meet http://tinyurl.com/

http://tinyurl.com/yqmcvo
http://tinyurl.com/ynjk5g
http://tinyurl.com/2aund6

Much more newsgroup friendly!

BTW paranoid people can use:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yqmcvo
http://preview.tinyurl.com/ynjk5g
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2aund6


Cheers
Goaty
--
_--_|\ John Lamp - in beautiful downtown Highton
/ \ meanderings. 2200-2400 Wednesday
\_.--._/ on 94.7 the Pulse - Geelong Community Radio
v http://www.myspace.com/meanderings_thepulse

"You know, if the internet was analogue with tubes, this stuff
wouldn't happen." - Sean S

[Fritz]

John
what will they think of next-didn't know about that one. Thanks for
the tip on URL posting

BTW-don't laugh at tubes and analog-about 4 years ago I put an
internet connected seismograph in the Pacific ocean that runs on an
old ATT transocean cable. All the links are ppp over FDM and the
subsea amplifiers
are vaccuum tube models (gas valves as the Brits used to call them).
They have been down there since the 1960s and are still ticking. ATT
kindly donated the line to us when the retired in in the 1980's.

Cheers
Fritz

[Scott Dorsey]

Fritz > wrote:
>
>BTW-don't laugh at tubes and analog-about 4 years ago I put an
>internet connected seismograph in the Pacific ocean that runs on an
>old ATT transocean cable. All the links are ppp over FDM and the
>subsea amplifiers
>are vaccuum tube models (gas valves as the Brits used to call them).
>They have been down there since the 1960s and are still ticking. ATT
>kindly donated the line to us when the retired in in the 1980's.

Yes, those are _real_ tube amplifiers.

The cheap "tube mike preamps" like the ART are not tube amplifiers at
all, but solid-state amplifiers with a tube effects stage. They don't
sound anything at all like the real thing, and they don't sound very good.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

On Apr 8, 10:54 pm, "Fritz" > wrote:

> A violin probably needs
> 30kHz for good reproduction, so I would hope for a sample
> rate of 60kHz. Not sure what the bit density would need to by however-
> I think PCs have 16bit resolution.

There is little need to consider what's up at 30 kHz unless you're
doing a technical analysis of the instrument, and if so, you'll need
something better than an MXL 990 mic. The word length (bit depth)
mostly determines the noise floor. 16 bits is adequate, but it's not a
big deal to record in 24 bit resolution. That's worth while, but
sample rate greater than 44.1 or 48 kHz is not.

> I assume the issue with the
> pre-amp would be frequency clipping and flatness.

Actually, no. It's about residual noise, gain, and how it loads the
microphone. Nothing in this price range stands out from the rest.
Don't worry about it unless you're willing to multiply your budget by
a factor of ten or twenty.

> Concerning the Mic, is there another option for under 100 dollars?

There are lots. Depending on why you actually want to make the
recordings, there may be better choices. There always are, and there
always will be.

[Arny Krueger]

"Fritz" > wrote in message
ups.com
> Gentlemen:
> OK and thanks again. Hmmm you must all be learning
> that musical instrument builders are cheap.(;->
> At any rate the poor acoustics in our shop coupled with
> bad violin playing does'nt often mandate high grade
> equipment.
> Usually modest recordings can get the point across to
> another luthier when trading sound clips to discuss a
> technical problem in an instrument.
>
> NOW - before I reach for my credit card let me be sure
> that I understand what is being said here. For a low
> cost, low quality system I can buy either of the 2
> options below. Is this correct?:
>
> MXL 990 -> Audio Buddy (Preamp) -> UCA202 (A/D
> Converter) -> PC
>
> MXL 990 -> TubeMP-project-serives (Preamp and A/D
> Converter) -> PC
>
> I am assuming that you are all indicating that the sound
> card on the PC has a poor A/D conversion characteristic,
> and the devices mentioned do this outside the box.

On board PC audio interfaces have improved greatly over the years, but they
are still appreciably below even average off-board solutions, purely for
economical reasons.

> A violin probably needs 30kHz for good reproduction,

Simply not true. This is a very old experiment - take a high sample rate
recording (say 24/96) and downsample it to 44 KHz. Compare the downsampled
version to the origional. Try to hear a difference. Very, very tough.

Here - try it for yourself:

http://64www.pcabx.com/sample_rates/index.htm

> Not sure what the bit density would need
> to by however- I think PCs have 16bit resolution.

It is naive to assume that just because an audio interface handles 16 bit
data, that it has 16 bit resolution. There are some interfaces that closely
approach 16 bit resolution when they work with 16 bit data. This is getting
to be more common.

But,there simply are no audio converters in general use that have 24 bit
resolution. Even 20 bit resolution is tough. Prices for 20 bit performance
are coming down, though.

But you don't need even 16 bit resolution to record and play real-world
audio. Various environmental factors push actual reasolution down into the
12-13 bit range. Many of us edit with 24 and 32 bit resolution to obtain
other practical advantages. But editing and processing have different and
more stringent requirements from recording and playing.

> I assume the issue with the pre-amp would be frequency
> clipping and flatness.

Mic preamps have many more dimensions than frequency response. One important
practical issue is how noisy the preamp is with mics that don't have a lot
of output, i.e., dynamic as opposed to condenser mics. Noise performance
extends to how well the mic preamp rejects noise from RF sources - nearby
broadcast and 2-way transmitters, cell phones, wireless appliances including
microphones, etc. There are flatness and fr peaking issues relating to how
the input impedance of the mic preamp loads the output of the mic. Then,
there's plain old dynamic range. There's an issue with a lot of low-cost mic
preamps relating to how smooth their frequency response is when the gain is
turned up.

> Concerning the Mic, is there another option for under 100
> dollars? Here was some of the banter that led me to the
> MXL 990.

> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.music.makers.bowed-strings/browse_thread/thread/54deab88ca91d72d/83526ace9e5eb05e?lnk=gst&q=mxl+990&rnum=1#83526ace9e5eb05e
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.music.makers.bowed-strings/browse_thread/thread/99d798b1e4691ede/5420b4bccf35ea3e?lnk=gst&q=mxl+990&rnum=2#5420b4bccf35ea3e
> http://www.maestronet.com/forums/messageview.cfm?catid=3&threadid=313270&highlight_key=y&keyword1=mxl%20AND%20990

When I was buying mics in that class, I went two other ways. I bought a pair
of Samson C01 mics because they are really hypercardioids and offer more
directionality.

BTW the spec sheet for the MXL 990 shows a back lobe that separates it from
being a true cardioid, but the response at 90 degrees suggests that it has
overall directionality more like a fairly wide cardioid.

Revisting large diaphragm cardioids, my second purchase was a Rode NT01 - on
the grounds that it is fairly smooth and has outstanding dynamic range.

OTOH, the MXL 990 has to be quite a buy - a mere $70 with a shock mount. The
mics I mentioned cost 40-300% more in similar configurations.

I can't see breaking the bank to buy electronics to support a $70 mic. To me
it is total system value that counts. It seems like value comes back faster
with cheap transducers than with cheap electronics, when you're at the low
end.

[Fritz]

Thanks for the further replies.
I agree that 30kHz is out of line for sound reproduction in a violin.
However when doing spectral analysis these upper frequencies are
required when
integrating the energy output to account for "lost power". That said I
am probably not intending to use the mic for this purpose.
Realistically
10kHz is maxium for most humans. There is some dogma about lower
"phantom" beats which can be heard in recorder
consorts and organs but these do not likely factor here.

>But,there simply are no audio converters in general use that have 24 bit resolution. <
Interesting. I am not an audio expert and approach things from the
descrete level, so my assumptions were based
on the present available ICs which I use elsewhere. e.g.
http://www.analog.com/en/prod/0,,760_789_AD1871%2C00.html
http://www.analog.com/en/prod/0,,761_796_AD1853%2C00.html

>One important practical issue is how noisy the preamp is with mics that don't have a lot of output<
More interesting. I was aware that many mikes have an FET amp but I
presume form your comments that SNR is still a problem.
Thanks for the info on these issues.

> I can't see breaking the bank to buy electronics to support a $70 mic. <
Absolutely. It appears that there is quite a leap in cost from my
simple low end approach and the
next step in quality. I cannot justify the latter.

Based upon the commentary here I will probably stay the course with a
low end (mxl 990) and interface
until I am pressed by need for more quality. The few 990 recordings I
have heard for violin and harpsichord
evaluation are fine for the problems/characteristics we are listening
for. I can always press a friend with
more sophisticated equipment should the need arise.

I want to thank all of your for your help and comments-I learned a lot
here and find this forum to be very professional

Cheers,
Fritz

[John L Rice]

--
John L Rice
www.DeliriumFix.com

"Fritz" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Thanks for the further replies.
> I agree that 30kHz is out of line for sound reproduction in a violin.
> However when doing spectral analysis these upper frequencies are
> required when
> integrating the energy output to account for "lost power". That said I
> am probably not intending to use the mic for this purpose.
> Realistically
> 10kHz is maxium for most humans. There is some dogma about lower
> "phantom" beats which can be heard in recorder
> consorts and organs but these do not likely factor here.
>
>>But,there simply are no audio converters in general use that have 24 bit
>>resolution. <
> Interesting. I am not an audio expert and approach things from the
> descrete level, so my assumptions were based
> on the present available ICs which I use elsewhere. e.g.
> http://www.analog.com/en/prod/0,,760_789_AD1871%2C00.html
> http://www.analog.com/en/prod/0,,761_796_AD1853%2C00.html
>
>>One important practical issue is how noisy the preamp is with mics that
>>don't have a lot of output<
> More interesting. I was aware that many mikes have an FET amp but I
> presume form your comments that SNR is still a problem.
> Thanks for the info on these issues.
>
>> I can't see breaking the bank to buy electronics to support a $70 mic. <
> Absolutely. It appears that there is quite a leap in cost from my
> simple low end approach and the
> next step in quality. I cannot justify the latter.
>
> Based upon the commentary here I will probably stay the course with a
> low end (mxl 990) and interface
> until I am pressed by need for more quality. The few 990 recordings I
> have heard for violin and harpsichord
> evaluation are fine for the problems/characteristics we are listening
> for. I can always press a friend with
> more sophisticated equipment should the need arise.
>
> I want to thank all of your for your help and comments-I learned a lot
> here and find this forum to be very professional
>
> Cheers,
> Fritz

Hi Fritz,

I know it's sounding like I work for Behringer (I don't! :-) but you might
consider a measurement style mic like the Behringer ECM8000 :
http://www.zzounds.com/item--BEHECM8000

I haven't tried one but I have the Audix TR40 which is at least identical
looking and I suspect very similar in design. The TR40's are about $180 each
but the Be are only about $50 each. The Avenson STO-2 mics might be even
better but are way over your budget ($500 a pair)

Give the ECM8000's a close look before you buy something.

Best of luck.

John L Rice

[Scott Dorsey]

Fritz > wrote:
>Thanks for the further replies.
>I agree that 30kHz is out of line for sound reproduction in a violin.
>However when doing spectral analysis these upper frequencies are
>required when
>integrating the energy output to account for "lost power". That said I
>am probably not intending to use the mic for this purpose.
>Realistically
>10kHz is maxium for most humans. There is some dogma about lower
>"phantom" beats which can be heard in recorder
>consorts and organs but these do not likely factor here.

Actually, they do factor there, and in a bad way, because the intermodulation
effects in electronics aren't the same as in your ears. So if you have too
wide bandwidth on the microphone, you can wind up with beat products that
weren't audible to a listener in the studio, but which appear on the recording.
This is bad, and it's why most folks don't want extended response. If you
DO want extended response, you need better linearity in order to get away
with it.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arny Krueger]

"Fritz" > wrote in message
oups.com

> There is some dogma
> about lower "phantom" beats which can be heard in recorder
> consorts and organs but these do not likely factor here.

It's all speculation and no real evidence.

>> But,there simply are no audio converters in general use
>> that have 24 bit resolution. <

> Interesting. I am not an audio expert and approach things
> from the descrete level, so my assumptions were based
> on the present available ICs which I use elsewhere. e.g.
> http://www.analog.com/en/prod/0,,760_789_AD1871%2C00.html

"105 dB (Typ) Dynamic Range"

That's about 17.5 bits.

> http://www.analog.com/en/prod/0,,761_796_AD1853%2C00.html

"116dB Dynamic Range"

That's about 19.5 bits.

"One important practical issue is how noisy the preamp is with mics that
don't have a lot of output<

> More interesting.

What I'm saying is that mic preamp noise is rarely a problem with condenser
mics, but can be a problem with dynamic mics. In particular, if you use a
dynamic mic that was designed for close micing (e.g., a SM57 or 58) as an
area coverage mic, a lot of seemingly-adequate mic preamps come up noisy.

> I was aware that many mikes have an FET
> amp but I presume form your comments that SNR is still a
> problem.

A lot of mics are quieter than the environment in which they are used.

[[email protected]]

OK, I guess I'm coming to this thread a bit late. I'm both a violin
maker and cheap, so I qualify to answer. :-)

I went on this quest a year or two ago and discovered a couple of
things. First, the MXL990 is a really crummy mic for violin (Is it
good for anything???). As a very general rule, violins sound better
with small diaphram mics. The 990 is blurry and boomy, and doesn't
give a good rendition of the violin--it's neither accurate nor
pleasurable.

For the absolute minimum of bucks, at the beginning the best education
I got was from a RadioShack clip-on mic, run into my computer's mic
in. I say that not because I can't hear the difference with better
gear, but because there's a lot you can learn from using this
combination, before you shell out the big bucks, and the first thing
is that the room and the mic placement are MUCH MORE IMPORTANT than
the quality of the gear involved. So I'd spend the thirty bucks and
play around a bit before getting deeper into it. This is not really a
horrible mic, either in the general scheme of things you can spend a
lot more money and get worse. And you won't need a preamp for your
computer to use it.

The next thing I learned is that just spending a lot of money doesn't
guarantee you'll get something that works for violin. Many nice mics
have a "presence" peak in their response, and since the violin also
has a peak there, when they sum up on the recording the results can be
very unpleasant, in my personal opinion. So after spending too much
money on well-reviewed mics that made violins sound harsh, I started
looking for mics with flat response.

The third thing is learned (already knew it, really) is that most
violin recordings are done with beauty in mind, not accuracy, so
again, before shelling out the bucks, you'd better consider what you
want. One general thing I discovered in this line was that cardiod,
etc., mics don't accurately get a lot of the spectrum what a violin
puts out; omni mics often seem to do a better job. That's because a
lot of the violin's sound comes off the back and sides, goes out into
the room, and comes back in all directions. Many commercial recordings
are taken off the top of the violin at close range, attempt to
eliminate the room, and don't get the whole feel of the individuality
of various violins. If you're recording in a shop for archival
purposes, you may want to consider what your objective is in this
regard.

For what I wanted to accomplish I finally settled on AT3032 mics,
before I ran out of money. They don't have too bad of a sound, and
they're flat. Parenthetically, they run fine on lower phantom voltage,
if that's what your preamp gives. I have a Behringer ECM8000, and
while it's flat, it's also noisy, and blurry, though not as much as
the 990. I use it for recording things for FFT analysis, where it
works fine, but not for actual music. For FFT it's not necessary to
have input all the way to 30KHz--most, or all, of the important stuff,
and all of the things you can manipulate in the shop, are lower down
on the spectrum. I suspect if you clipped everything off the violin
sound above 15K you really wouldn't lose much important information.

In general I found that the mic mattered more than the preamp, and I
won't tell you what I'm doing for that, or I'll get shouted down. So
it's #1, room and placement; #2, mic; and #3, preamp, for me.

You'll find that if you let the audio freaks lead you, you'll end up
spending thousands for mics and preamps, and you may still not be able
to make a good recording because you've got crappy technique in a
rotten room. I'd start cheap, and play around a lot before moving on.

--Michael
http://darntonviolins.com

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> OK, I guess I'm coming to this thread a bit late. I'm both a violin
> maker and cheap, so I qualify to answer. :-)
>
> I went on this quest a year or two ago and discovered a couple of
> things. First, the MXL990 is a really crummy mic for violin (Is it
> good for anything???). As a very general rule, violins sound better
> with small diaphram mics. The 990 is blurry and boomy, and doesn't
> give a good rendition of the violin--it's neither accurate nor
> pleasurable.
>
> For the absolute minimum of bucks, at the beginning the best education
> I got was from a RadioShack clip-on mic, run into my computer's mic
> in.

Got a RS part number for that mic?

> I say that not because I can't hear the difference with better
> gear, but because there's a lot you can learn from using this
> combination, before you shell out the big bucks, and the first thing
> is that the room and the mic placement are MUCH MORE IMPORTANT than
> the quality of the gear involved.

Agreed.

[[email protected]]

> > For the absolute minimum of bucks, at the beginning the best education
> > I got was from a RadioShack clip-on mic, run into my computer's mic
> > in.
>
> Got a RS part number for that mic?

This isn't the exact one, but very similar--probably better than what
I got:
http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2453582

--Michael

[Richard Crowley]

> wrote ...
>
>> > For the absolute minimum of bucks, at the beginning the best education
>> > I got was from a RadioShack clip-on mic, run into my computer's mic
>> > in.
>>
>> Got a RS part number for that mic?
>
> This isn't the exact one, but very similar--probably better than what
> I got:
> http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2453582

It looks like that is the only 'traditional lav" mic left at Radio Shack.
They used to sell a generic ("Radio Shack" brand, etc.) lav for about
$25-30 that was sometimes useful as a "disposable mic". :-)

[Steve King]

"Richard Crowley" > wrote in message
...
> > wrote ...
>>
>>> > For the absolute minimum of bucks, at the beginning the best education
>>> > I got was from a RadioShack clip-on mic, run into my computer's mic
>>> > in.
>>>
>>> Got a RS part number for that mic?
>>
>> This isn't the exact one, but very similar--probably better than what
>> I got:
>> http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2453582
>
> It looks like that is the only 'traditional lav" mic left at Radio Shack.
> They used to sell a generic ("Radio Shack" brand, etc.) lav for about
> $25-30 that was sometimes useful as a "disposable mic". :-)

The Radio Shack lav that I bought a few years ago is not very good, as you
might expect; but, it has been very handy. I've used it, where I wouldn't
risk a more expensive model: inside machinery, down a well, taped near a
car tire, etc. Once I used it inside a motorcycle helmet with face shield,
because it sounded better than my other lav choices that day. Sometimes bad
is good.

Steve King