I recently purchased a tascam us122 to record classical guitar on my
laptop (yes, same guy who was asking how to do that last week). Well,
it all works fine. However, not really any better, and perhaps
slightly worse than my previous setup which was, Behringer mixer into
soundblaster live card (PC). Don't get me wrong, i'm very happy with
the convenience and portability of the us122 and that's a major reason
i bought it.
My question is, why do i have to crank up the levels on the 122 to
almost full in order to get a decent signal. Whereas with the
behringer i have the gain less than half and the level at half, and
it's fine. Does this mean the behringer has better pre's? It's only a
Eurorack (about $50). Also, can i output the behringer into the us122,
or is that a dumb thing to do? Somehow could not get it to work. Maybe
i should get better mics (i have marshall MXL's).

"caveplayer" wrote in message
om...
I recently purchased a tascam us122 to record classical guitar on my
laptop (yes, same guy who was asking how to do that last week). Well,
it all works fine. However, not really any better, and perhaps
slightly worse than my previous setup which was, Behringer mixer into
soundblaster live card (PC). Don't get me wrong, i'm very happy with
the convenience and portability of the us122 and that's a major reason
i bought it.
My question is, why do i have to crank up the levels on the 122 to
almost full in order to get a decent signal. Whereas with the
behringer i have the gain less than half and the level at half, and
it's fine. Does this mean the behringer has better pre's? It's only a
Eurorack (about $50). Also, can i output the behringer into the us122,
or is that a dumb thing to do? Somehow could not get it to work. Maybe
i should get better mics (i have marshall MXL's).

It just means that the combination of Behringer and Soundblaster has more
total gain going into the analog-to-digital converter than the Tascam does.
If the result on the Tascam isn't excessively noisy, don't worry about it.

If the US122 has a line input, then you can go from the Behringer's line
output into that. You may get more gain that way, but probably the sound
quality won't improve. If you're getting adequate levels from the Tascam by
itself, and not getting too much noise, I'd say leave it.

As for better microphones, that probably wouldn't be a bad idea, but not for
gain reasons. Look at a matched pair of Oktava MC012s from the Sound Room
(www.oktava.com)

Peace,
Paul

"caveplayer" wrote in message
om...
I recently purchased a tascam us122 to record classical guitar on my
laptop (yes, same guy who was asking how to do that last week). Well,
it all works fine. However, not really any better, and perhaps
slightly worse than my previous setup which was, Behringer mixer into
soundblaster live card (PC). Don't get me wrong, i'm very happy with
the convenience and portability of the us122 and that's a major reason
i bought it.
My question is, why do i have to crank up the levels on the 122 to
almost full in order to get a decent signal. Whereas with the
behringer i have the gain less than half and the level at half, and
it's fine. Does this mean the behringer has better pre's? It's only a
Eurorack (about $50). Also, can i output the behringer into the us122,
or is that a dumb thing to do? Somehow could not get it to work. Maybe
i should get better mics (i have marshall MXL's).

It just means that the combination of Behringer and Soundblaster has more
total gain going into the analog-to-digital converter than the Tascam does.
If the result on the Tascam isn't excessively noisy, don't worry about it.

If the US122 has a line input, then you can go from the Behringer's line
output into that. You may get more gain that way, but probably the sound
quality won't improve. If you're getting adequate levels from the Tascam by
itself, and not getting too much noise, I'd say leave it.

As for better microphones, that probably wouldn't be a bad idea, but not for
gain reasons. Look at a matched pair of Oktava MC012s from the Sound Room
(www.oktava.com)

Peace,
Paul

In article writes:

My question is, why do i have to crank up the levels on the 122 to
almost full in order to get a decent signal. Whereas with the
behringer i have the gain less than half and the level at half, and
it's fine. Does this mean the behringer has better pre's?

No, it only means that they have a different gain structure. When I
had the US122 in for review, I found that the preamps weren't all that
great - adequate but not great. It's impossible to define gain in a
traditional sense since the input is analog and the output is digital,
but I found that in order to reach full scale, even with the input
gain wide open, I had to bellow pretty loud into a medium sensitivty
dynamic mic about a foot away.

With the Behringer mixer into the Soundblaster, you really have a
greater sensitivity than with the US-122, but you may be getting more
noise or distortion along with it. But if it works for you, by all
means try using the Behringer mixer as a preamp into the line input of
the US-122. Set the gain on the mixer so that its meters peak just
about 0 VU on the loudest parts, then set the gain on the US-122 so
that the red clipping light never comes on.


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

In article writes:

My question is, why do i have to crank up the levels on the 122 to
almost full in order to get a decent signal. Whereas with the
behringer i have the gain less than half and the level at half, and
it's fine. Does this mean the behringer has better pre's?

No, it only means that they have a different gain structure. When I
had the US122 in for review, I found that the preamps weren't all that
great - adequate but not great. It's impossible to define gain in a
traditional sense since the input is analog and the output is digital,
but I found that in order to reach full scale, even with the input
gain wide open, I had to bellow pretty loud into a medium sensitivty
dynamic mic about a foot away.

With the Behringer mixer into the Soundblaster, you really have a
greater sensitivity than with the US-122, but you may be getting more
noise or distortion along with it. But if it works for you, by all
means try using the Behringer mixer as a preamp into the line input of
the US-122. Set the gain on the mixer so that its meters peak just
about 0 VU on the loudest parts, then set the gain on the US-122 so
that the red clipping light never comes on.


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

(Mike Rivers) wrote in message news:znr1096903078k@trad...
In article writes:

My question is, why do i have to crank up the levels on the 122 to
almost full in order to get a decent signal. Whereas with the
behringer i have the gain less than half and the level at half, and
it's fine. Does this mean the behringer has better pre's?

No, it only means that they have a different gain structure. When I
had the US122 in for review, I found that the preamps weren't all that
great - adequate but not great. It's impossible to define gain in a
traditional sense since the input is analog and the output is digital,
but I found that in order to reach full scale, even with the input
gain wide open, I had to bellow pretty loud into a medium sensitivty
dynamic mic about a foot away.

With the Behringer mixer into the Soundblaster, you really have a
greater sensitivity than with the US-122, but you may be getting more
noise or distortion along with it. But if it works for you, by all
means try using the Behringer mixer as a preamp into the line input of
the US-122. Set the gain on the mixer so that its meters peak just
about 0 VU on the loudest parts, then set the gain on the US-122 so
that the red clipping light never comes on.

Thanks,
No, there is no noticeable noise when i turn the level up, i was just
wondering why i had to turn it up so much.
Now the more difficult question, since i have the expert here. My
current set up for recording (mostly classical guitar) is a pair of
MXL603S, into the tascam, into my computer, and using cakewalk. I
don't do too much multitracking but occasionally i do. If i wanted to
take the next step up for BETTER SOUND QUALITY, where would i put my
money? Soundcard, mics, software??
I know this is a loaded question for this NG but what the hell. BY
BETTER SOUND QUALITY, I BASICALLY WANT IT TO SOUND LIKE IT DOES TO ME
WHEN I'M PLAYING IT. AND I'M TOTALLY SATISFIED WITH THE ROOM
ACOUSTICS.

(Mike Rivers) wrote in message news:znr1096903078k@trad...
In article writes:

My question is, why do i have to crank up the levels on the 122 to
almost full in order to get a decent signal. Whereas with the
behringer i have the gain less than half and the level at half, and
it's fine. Does this mean the behringer has better pre's?

No, it only means that they have a different gain structure. When I
had the US122 in for review, I found that the preamps weren't all that
great - adequate but not great. It's impossible to define gain in a
traditional sense since the input is analog and the output is digital,
but I found that in order to reach full scale, even with the input
gain wide open, I had to bellow pretty loud into a medium sensitivty
dynamic mic about a foot away.

With the Behringer mixer into the Soundblaster, you really have a
greater sensitivity than with the US-122, but you may be getting more
noise or distortion along with it. But if it works for you, by all
means try using the Behringer mixer as a preamp into the line input of
the US-122. Set the gain on the mixer so that its meters peak just
about 0 VU on the loudest parts, then set the gain on the US-122 so
that the red clipping light never comes on.

Thanks,
No, there is no noticeable noise when i turn the level up, i was just
wondering why i had to turn it up so much.
Now the more difficult question, since i have the expert here. My
current set up for recording (mostly classical guitar) is a pair of
MXL603S, into the tascam, into my computer, and using cakewalk. I
don't do too much multitracking but occasionally i do. If i wanted to
take the next step up for BETTER SOUND QUALITY, where would i put my
money? Soundcard, mics, software??
I know this is a loaded question for this NG but what the hell. BY
BETTER SOUND QUALITY, I BASICALLY WANT IT TO SOUND LIKE IT DOES TO ME
WHEN I'M PLAYING IT. AND I'M TOTALLY SATISFIED WITH THE ROOM
ACOUSTICS.

caveplayer wrote:


No, there is no noticeable noise when i turn the level up, i was just
wondering why i had to turn it up so much.

There is only about 38 dB of gain re 1V RMS which is digital
full scale for US122 mic in at minimum gain. IOW, a signal
of -38 dBV will give you full digital scale at max gain.

To get a full scale signal from your MXL603s (10 mV/Pa
sensitivity) at 38 dB gain would require about 96 dB SPL.
For every dB SPL your guitar is below that, you will lose 1
dB full digital scale at the max gain setting.

Anybody know the SPL level of a classical guitar from a
typical mic placement?

For that mic and your guitar I'd guess you need about
another 20 dB (10X) gain to give you the kind of signal you
want into your US122 mic in. The Berhinger is not a bad way
to get that.

I know this is a loaded question for this NG but what the hell. BY
BETTER SOUND QUALITY, I BASICALLY WANT IT TO SOUND LIKE IT DOES TO ME
WHEN I'M PLAYING IT. AND I'M TOTALLY SATISFIED WITH THE ROOM
ACOUSTICS.

Close one ear, move the other one around until you like what
you hear, record it from there and see how similar that
recording is played back to the same ear. I know that's
hard to do while you're playing but it should give you an
idea what the problem is.

You may want to be using a stereo mic or a pair of 603s in
an XY configuration. I very much like small diaphragm XY
stereo on acoustic guitar. If the stero image you get is
too broad you can vary that from a little all the way to
mono as well as pan it using M/S techniques.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

caveplayer wrote:


No, there is no noticeable noise when i turn the level up, i was just
wondering why i had to turn it up so much.

There is only about 38 dB of gain re 1V RMS which is digital
full scale for US122 mic in at minimum gain. IOW, a signal
of -38 dBV will give you full digital scale at max gain.

To get a full scale signal from your MXL603s (10 mV/Pa
sensitivity) at 38 dB gain would require about 96 dB SPL.
For every dB SPL your guitar is below that, you will lose 1
dB full digital scale at the max gain setting.

Anybody know the SPL level of a classical guitar from a
typical mic placement?

For that mic and your guitar I'd guess you need about
another 20 dB (10X) gain to give you the kind of signal you
want into your US122 mic in. The Berhinger is not a bad way
to get that.

I know this is a loaded question for this NG but what the hell. BY
BETTER SOUND QUALITY, I BASICALLY WANT IT TO SOUND LIKE IT DOES TO ME
WHEN I'M PLAYING IT. AND I'M TOTALLY SATISFIED WITH THE ROOM
ACOUSTICS.

Close one ear, move the other one around until you like what
you hear, record it from there and see how similar that
recording is played back to the same ear. I know that's
hard to do while you're playing but it should give you an
idea what the problem is.

You may want to be using a stereo mic or a pair of 603s in
an XY configuration. I very much like small diaphragm XY
stereo on acoustic guitar. If the stero image you get is
too broad you can vary that from a little all the way to
mono as well as pan it using M/S techniques.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

(caveplayer)
No, there is no noticeable noise when i turn the level up, i was just
wondering why i had to turn it up so much.

If it sounds good on "10", turn it up! (If not back it off.)

My
current set up for recording (mostly classical guitar) is a pair of
MXL603S, into the tascam, into my computer, and using cakewalk. I
don't do too much multitracking but occasionally i do. If i wanted to
take the next step up for BETTER SOUND QUALITY, where would i put my
money? Soundcard, mics, software??
I know this is a loaded question for this NG but what the hell. BY
BETTER SOUND QUALITY, I BASICALLY WANT IT TO SOUND LIKE IT DOES TO ME
WHEN I'M PLAYING IT. AND I'M TOTALLY SATISFIED WITH THE ROOM
ACOUSTICS.

Depends on your budget, really.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

(caveplayer)
No, there is no noticeable noise when i turn the level up, i was just
wondering why i had to turn it up so much.

If it sounds good on "10", turn it up! (If not back it off.)

My
current set up for recording (mostly classical guitar) is a pair of
MXL603S, into the tascam, into my computer, and using cakewalk. I
don't do too much multitracking but occasionally i do. If i wanted to
take the next step up for BETTER SOUND QUALITY, where would i put my
money? Soundcard, mics, software??
I know this is a loaded question for this NG but what the hell. BY
BETTER SOUND QUALITY, I BASICALLY WANT IT TO SOUND LIKE IT DOES TO ME
WHEN I'M PLAYING IT. AND I'M TOTALLY SATISFIED WITH THE ROOM
ACOUSTICS.

Depends on your budget, really.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

Bob Cain wrote in message ...
Close one ear, move the other one around until you like what
you hear, record it from there and see how similar that
recording is played back to the same ear. I know that's
hard to do while you're playing but it should give you an
idea what the problem is.

You may want to be using a stereo mic or a pair of 603s in
an XY configuration. I very much like small diaphragm XY
stereo on acoustic guitar. If the stero image you get is
too broad you can vary that from a little all the way to
mono as well as pan it using M/S techniques.


Bob
i should also mention that the mics (in the current configuration that
i found gives decent sound) are about 3 feet from the guitar.
One in front and one above my left shoulder and a bit in front of me
pointing down at the guitar.

Bob Cain wrote in message ...
Close one ear, move the other one around until you like what
you hear, record it from there and see how similar that
recording is played back to the same ear. I know that's
hard to do while you're playing but it should give you an
idea what the problem is.

You may want to be using a stereo mic or a pair of 603s in
an XY configuration. I very much like small diaphragm XY
stereo on acoustic guitar. If the stero image you get is
too broad you can vary that from a little all the way to
mono as well as pan it using M/S techniques.


Bob
i should also mention that the mics (in the current configuration that
i found gives decent sound) are about 3 feet from the guitar.
One in front and one above my left shoulder and a bit in front of me
pointing down at the guitar.

In article writes:

No, there is no noticeable noise when i turn the level up, i was just
wondering why i had to turn it up so much.

Because instead of going up to eleven, it only goes up to eight. g

current set up for recording (mostly classical guitar) is a pair of
MXL603S, into the tascam, into my computer, and using cakewalk. I
don't do too much multitracking but occasionally i do. If i wanted to
take the next step up for BETTER SOUND QUALITY, where would i put my
money? Soundcard, mics, software??
I know this is a loaded question for this NG but what the hell. BY
BETTER SOUND QUALITY, I BASICALLY WANT IT TO SOUND LIKE IT DOES TO ME
WHEN I'M PLAYING IT. AND I'M TOTALLY SATISFIED WITH THE ROOM
ACOUSTICS.

Better monitors? Different mic position? It won't sound like you're
playing it because you're not hearing sound coming from the same
direction as the microphones are hearing. Maybe you're totally
satisfied with the room acoustics, but are your microphones? And can
you accurately hear the same thing they're hearing?

It's not a loaded question, but the answer is "everything." The most
important thing in improving recorded sound is to be able to hear
accurately. Then you'll be able to figure out what you need to
improve.

If you just want an off-the-shelf answer, on general principles,
replace your SoundBlaster card with one designed for recording music
rather than playing back game audio. That will help both going in and
coming out, but you still may not be able to hear an improvement if
your monitor system (which includes the room) isn't up to par. Or
maybe it will be a real ear-opener. There are many things about this
business that you just don't know about until you try.


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

In article writes:

No, there is no noticeable noise when i turn the level up, i was just
wondering why i had to turn it up so much.

Because instead of going up to eleven, it only goes up to eight. g

current set up for recording (mostly classical guitar) is a pair of
MXL603S, into the tascam, into my computer, and using cakewalk. I
don't do too much multitracking but occasionally i do. If i wanted to
take the next step up for BETTER SOUND QUALITY, where would i put my
money? Soundcard, mics, software??
I know this is a loaded question for this NG but what the hell. BY
BETTER SOUND QUALITY, I BASICALLY WANT IT TO SOUND LIKE IT DOES TO ME
WHEN I'M PLAYING IT. AND I'M TOTALLY SATISFIED WITH THE ROOM
ACOUSTICS.

Better monitors? Different mic position? It won't sound like you're
playing it because you're not hearing sound coming from the same
direction as the microphones are hearing. Maybe you're totally
satisfied with the room acoustics, but are your microphones? And can
you accurately hear the same thing they're hearing?

It's not a loaded question, but the answer is "everything." The most
important thing in improving recorded sound is to be able to hear
accurately. Then you'll be able to figure out what you need to
improve.

If you just want an off-the-shelf answer, on general principles,
replace your SoundBlaster card with one designed for recording music
rather than playing back game audio. That will help both going in and
coming out, but you still may not be able to hear an improvement if
your monitor system (which includes the room) isn't up to par. Or
maybe it will be a real ear-opener. There are many things about this
business that you just don't know about until you try.


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

"caveplayer" wrote in message
om...

i should also mention that the mics (in the current configuration that
i found gives decent sound) are about 3 feet from the guitar.
One in front and one above my left shoulder and a bit in front of me
pointing down at the guitar.

There's the reason you need to crank the gain. Most gear these days is
designed with the assumption that you'll be close-miking everything. Farther
away lower levels need for gain.

If it's sounding good and not hissing, though, I wouldn't worry about it.
How are you panning the two microphones? Are you checking in mono mode for
weird comb-filtering effects?

Peace,
Paul

"caveplayer" wrote in message
om...

i should also mention that the mics (in the current configuration that
i found gives decent sound) are about 3 feet from the guitar.
One in front and one above my left shoulder and a bit in front of me
pointing down at the guitar.

There's the reason you need to crank the gain. Most gear these days is
designed with the assumption that you'll be close-miking everything. Farther
away lower levels need for gain.

If it's sounding good and not hissing, though, I wouldn't worry about it.
How are you panning the two microphones? Are you checking in mono mode for
weird comb-filtering effects?

Peace,
Paul

(Mike Rivers) wrote in message news:znr1096974682k@trad...
In article writes:

No, there is no noticeable noise when i turn the level up, i was just
wondering why i had to turn it up so much.

Because instead of going up to eleven, it only goes up to eight. g

current set up for recording (mostly classical guitar) is a pair of
MXL603S, into the tascam, into my computer, and using cakewalk. I
don't do too much multitracking but occasionally i do. If i wanted to
take the next step up for BETTER SOUND QUALITY, where would i put my
money? Soundcard, mics, software??
I know this is a loaded question for this NG but what the hell. BY
BETTER SOUND QUALITY, I BASICALLY WANT IT TO SOUND LIKE IT DOES TO ME
WHEN I'M PLAYING IT. AND I'M TOTALLY SATISFIED WITH THE ROOM
ACOUSTICS.

Better monitors? Different mic position? It won't sound like you're
playing it because you're not hearing sound coming from the same
direction as the microphones are hearing. Maybe you're totally
satisfied with the room acoustics, but are your microphones? And can
you accurately hear the same thing they're hearing?

It's not a loaded question, but the answer is "everything." The most
important thing in improving recorded sound is to be able to hear
accurately. Then you'll be able to figure out what you need to
improve.

If you just want an off-the-shelf answer, on general principles,
replace your SoundBlaster card with one designed for recording music
rather than playing back game audio. That will help both going in and
coming out, but you still may not be able to hear an improvement if
your monitor system (which includes the room) isn't up to par. Or
maybe it will be a real ear-opener. There are many things about this
business that you just don't know about until you try.

Yes, and unfortunately 'trying' involves $$.
My definition of hearing it 'accurately' is hearing it played back the
way it sounded to me in the first place. Maybe i should just stick the
microphones in my ears.

(Mike Rivers) wrote in message news:znr1096974682k@trad...
In article writes:

No, there is no noticeable noise when i turn the level up, i was just
wondering why i had to turn it up so much.

Because instead of going up to eleven, it only goes up to eight. g

current set up for recording (mostly classical guitar) is a pair of
MXL603S, into the tascam, into my computer, and using cakewalk. I
don't do too much multitracking but occasionally i do. If i wanted to
take the next step up for BETTER SOUND QUALITY, where would i put my
money? Soundcard, mics, software??
I know this is a loaded question for this NG but what the hell. BY
BETTER SOUND QUALITY, I BASICALLY WANT IT TO SOUND LIKE IT DOES TO ME
WHEN I'M PLAYING IT. AND I'M TOTALLY SATISFIED WITH THE ROOM
ACOUSTICS.

Better monitors? Different mic position? It won't sound like you're
playing it because you're not hearing sound coming from the same
direction as the microphones are hearing. Maybe you're totally
satisfied with the room acoustics, but are your microphones? And can
you accurately hear the same thing they're hearing?

It's not a loaded question, but the answer is "everything." The most
important thing in improving recorded sound is to be able to hear
accurately. Then you'll be able to figure out what you need to
improve.

If you just want an off-the-shelf answer, on general principles,
replace your SoundBlaster card with one designed for recording music
rather than playing back game audio. That will help both going in and
coming out, but you still may not be able to hear an improvement if
your monitor system (which includes the room) isn't up to par. Or
maybe it will be a real ear-opener. There are many things about this
business that you just don't know about until you try.

Yes, and unfortunately 'trying' involves $$.
My definition of hearing it 'accurately' is hearing it played back the
way it sounded to me in the first place. Maybe i should just stick the
microphones in my ears.

In article writes:

Yes, and unfortunately 'trying' involves $$.

It doesn't have to. Find a dealer who will let you evaluate things you
are thinking of buying in your own studio. It might involve $credit$
in that he might charge your credit card and refund the charge if you
decide you don't want it and return it.

My definition of hearing it 'accurately' is hearing it played back the
way it sounded to me in the first place. Maybe i should just stick the
microphones in my ears.

Well, there are microphones that are designed to work exactly in that
manner. The Core Sound (and others) binaural mics can be worn on a
headband just like earphones and pick up a very good representation of
what your ears do.


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

In article writes:

Yes, and unfortunately 'trying' involves $$.

It doesn't have to. Find a dealer who will let you evaluate things you
are thinking of buying in your own studio. It might involve $credit$
in that he might charge your credit card and refund the charge if you
decide you don't want it and return it.

My definition of hearing it 'accurately' is hearing it played back the
way it sounded to me in the first place. Maybe i should just stick the
microphones in my ears.

Well, there are microphones that are designed to work exactly in that
manner. The Core Sound (and others) binaural mics can be worn on a
headband just like earphones and pick up a very good representation of
what your ears do.


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