Thanks to all. It looks like it's going to be the Apogee Mini-Me.

The next question refers to allocating channels of unequal quality. This is
what the setup looks like:

Tascam FW-1082 firewire board, http://www.tascam.com/Products/fw1082.html.
It has four onboard pres. Four more channels are in the form of two Midiman
DMP3's, http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_us/DMP3-main.html

The Tascam's SP/DIF will be fed by the Apogee Mini-Me.

This means that the channels will be of unequal quality. So, how to allocate
them? In the case of a vocalist backed by a band, it seems logical that the
vocalist(s) should be on the Mini-Me. In other situations, this is less
clear. Suppose I'm recording a chamber music quintet, which might
incorporate a variety of instruments. I would want to use coincident stereo
mic, in combination with mics for the various instruments.

1. Is the distant coincident mic the most critical?
2. Is there a clear ranking for criticality of the feed for the following:
sax, oboe, trumpet, violin, cello, bass?

Tia
Bob

And, of course, piano. Thanks.

"soundhaspriority" wrote in message
...
Thanks to all. It looks like it's going to be the Apogee Mini-Me.

The next question refers to allocating channels of unequal quality. This
is what the setup looks like:

Tascam FW-1082 firewire board, http://www.tascam.com/Products/fw1082.html.
It has four onboard pres. Four more channels are in the form of two
Midiman DMP3's, http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_us/DMP3-main.html

The Tascam's SP/DIF will be fed by the Apogee Mini-Me.

This means that the channels will be of unequal quality. So, how to
allocate them? In the case of a vocalist backed by a band, it seems
logical that the vocalist(s) should be on the Mini-Me. In other
situations, this is less clear. Suppose I'm recording a chamber music
quintet, which might incorporate a variety of instruments. I would want to
use coincident stereo mic, in combination with mics for the various
instruments.

1. Is the distant coincident mic the most critical?
2. Is there a clear ranking for criticality of the feed for the following:
sax, oboe, trumpet, violin, cello, bass?

Tia
Bob

soundhaspriority wrote:

Thanks to all. It looks like it's going to be the Apogee Mini-Me.

That's great news! Maybe there's hope for you after all.


The next question refers to allocating channels of unequal quality. This
is what the setup looks like:

Tascam FW-1082 firewire board, http://www.tascam.com/Products/fw1082.html.
It has four onboard pres. Four more channels are in the form of two
Midiman DMP3's, http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_us/DMP3-main.html

The Tascam's SP/DIF will be fed by the Apogee Mini-Me.

This means that the channels will be of unequal quality. So, how to
allocate them? In the case of a vocalist backed by a band, it seems
logical that the
vocalist(s) should be on the Mini-Me.

Gold star time! You're learning, isn't this fun?. Always use your best
stuff on the most important source. And when it's time to overdub, use
your best stuff there too.


In other situations, this is less
clear. Suppose I'm recording a chamber music quintet, which might
incorporate a variety of instruments. I would want to use coincident
stereo mic, in combination with mics for the various instruments.

1. Is the distant coincident mic the most critical?

It is if you want the natural sound traditionally associated with classical
music. In fact, if you're recording good musicians in a decent room, you
might go with just the stereo pair. That makes travel & setup less of a
hassle too.


2. Is there a clear ranking for criticality of the feed for the following:
sax, oboe, trumpet, violin, cello, bass?

In general, no. But there may well be for any given piece. The featured
soloist ALWAYS gets the best signal chain.

Anyway, you worry too much. Before you get yourself into a critical
situation, you should already know the answers to those questions from
experience (not only experience in general, but experience with YOUR own
particular gear).

"soundhaspriority"
wrote in message

Thanks to all. It looks like it's going to be the Apogee
Mini-Me.
The next question refers to allocating channels of
unequal quality. This is what the setup looks like:

Tascam FW-1082 firewire board,
http://www.tascam.com/Products/fw1082.html. It has four
onboard pres.

Four more channels are in the form of two Midiman DMP3's,

http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_us/DMP3-main.html

The Tascam's SP/DIF will be fed by the Apogee Mini-Me.

This means that the channels will be of unequal quality.

However, other than the Apogees, its not clear what the ranking should be.

Also, mic preamp quality has an aspect of compatibility - some mic preamps
are better or worse choices depending on the mic used with them.


So, how to allocate them?

By ear, based on experience with how the mic pre works with a given mic.

In the case of a vocalist
backed by a band, it seems logical that the vocalist(s) should be on the
Mini-Me. In other situations, this is
less clear. Suppose I'm recording a chamber music
quintet, which might incorporate a variety of
instruments. I would want to use coincident stereo mic,
in combination with mics for the various instruments.

1. Is the distant coincident mic the most critical?

Depends heavily on the mics.

There are three major orthogonal dimensions of mic preamp quality - noise,
large signal performance and timbre.

The worst case for noise is distant mics when the mics are dynamics.

The worst case for large signal performance is a close-up condensor on a
loud instrument like brass or vocal.

Timbre relates to matching of the coloration of mic preamp with the mic and
the sound source.

2. Is there a clear ranking for criticality of the feed
for the following: sax, oboe, trumpet, violin, cello,
bass?

You forgot to tell us about the room, the position of the instruments the
music and the players. They are all relevant.

The problem here is a request for one-dimensional answer to a
multidimensional problem that, just to make things fun has major parameters
undefined.

It gets to be too much to handle except up front and personal.

At some point you just go out and try some stuff. One nice thing about my
home-site situation is that I get at least two rehearsals and one live
performance per week, with only limited pressure to have things optimized at
any given time. If I don't get it precisely right this week or this
rehearsal, there is always the next one.

The more serious pressure relates to major presentations, and I still get
three of those per year, each with two or more rehearsals.

Practice gets you closer to perfect more and faster than anything else.
There's got to be a balance between thinking and doing.

"soundhaspriority" wrote:

Thanks to all. It looks like it's going to be the Apogee Mini-Me.

Nice.

I'm trying to understand your equipment selection
methodology. You've married yourself to the
microphone pre-amp and are now looking for special
use microphones. In the Hi-Fi world that's akin to
purchasing the power amp and then searching for
speakers to suite your preferences, right? Do you
believe the Apogee Mini-Me will be a universal
fit with all/most special use mics?

In article , "Powell" wrote:

I'm trying to understand your equipment selection
methodology. You've married yourself to the
microphone pre-amp and are now looking for special
use microphones. In the Hi-Fi world that's akin to
purchasing the power amp and then searching for
speakers to suite your preferences, right?

I've read this board long enough, so now I know everything. That's the only
"right", dickbrain. I went to college for a long time, too and clearly I'm
smarter than any of you other pro audio fools.

"soundhaspriority" is actually Robert Morein, a pest on
rec.audio.marketplace, where he accuses innocent sellers of various
misdeeds. He appears to be a pathological liar, with unknown motivations.

Morein is the owner of websites http://www.studentsandthelaw.com, which have
used fraudulent advertising in attempts to attract investors. Both have been
unsuccessful. Morein is known to associate with sexual predators and
pedophiles including Brian McCarty. Find "Brian McCarty" at this website:
http://tinyurl.com/bz2bh

Morein is an Israeli expatriate, originally from the Trenton area, where he
went to college for 12 years without any degree ever being conferred. He
then tried suing Drexel University for fraud, but the court rejected
Morein's arguments. As everyone with a lick of sense does.

Morien is currently living in his daddy's house in Dresher Pennsylvania,
where he manages to stalk a wide variety of people while swilling beer and
ogling the neighbors. He has no job. He never has. He never will.
His daddy's house is located at
1570 Arran Way
Dresher, PA

Morein lives at 1570 Arran Way, Dresher Pennsylvania,
a bit west of metropolitan Philadelphia.

Robert Morein can be contacted at

Powell wrote:

Do you believe the Apogee Mini-Me will be a universal
fit with all/most special use mics?

It should be a pretty good fit with all/most any kind of mic, but that
doesn't mean you'll never find a preamp that works better with a given
microphone. While there are exceptions, a good preamp should work
acceptably with most any mic you throw at it.

I'm not sure which post you're replying to, I re-read the one you quoted &
didn't find any reference to "special use".

"Powell" wrote in message
...

"soundhaspriority" wrote:

Thanks to all. It looks like it's going to be the Apogee Mini-Me.

Nice.

I'm trying to understand your equipment selection
methodology. You've married yourself to the
microphone pre-amp and are now looking for special
use microphones. In the Hi-Fi world that's akin to
purchasing the power amp and then searching for
speakers to suite your preferences, right? Do you
believe the Apogee Mini-Me will be a universal
fit with all/most special use mics?

Powell,
This is what I have:

Tascam FW-1082 firewire mix board. It has 8 analog inputs, 4 mic level, 4
line level, and one SP/DIF The Apogee feeds the SP/DIF for a total of ten
channels. The four line levels on the Tascam use M-Audio DMP3 preamps. Thus,
there are three different types of preamp in the system:
1. Native Tascam
2. M-Audio DMP3
3. Apogee Mini-Me

The Tascams are reputed to be good, clean. The DMP3 could reasonably be
expected to be better. I don't know where the Mini-Me fits, quality wise,
but it is at least very good. There is not a lot of dependency between
condenser mikes and preamps, because the dynamics of the capsule are
decoupled by the mike preamp. On the other hand, condensers and ribbons do
interact strongly with the preamp, requiring additional consideration.

From the discussion here, I gather that each signal path is likely to be
distinguished by the preamp. Apparently mic preamps, as simple as they are,
have significant qualities of dynamic range, transparency, and even noise.
As well, the Mini-Me has the best A/D converters. The built-in
compressor/soft limiter may mandate use of the Mini-Me for certain sources.

The main facet of the problem is matching an input to the appropriate use,
not the appropriate mike, the choice of which is also subject to the use.

"Agent 86" wrote

Do you believe the Apogee Mini-Me will be
a universal fit with all/most special use mics?

It should be a pretty good fit with all/most any
kind of mic, but that doesn't mean you'll never
find a preamp that works better with a given
microphone. While there are exceptions, a good
preamp should work acceptably with most any
mic you throw at it.

"It should be""a good preamp"... well, yes and no.
That's a metaphor just like saying 'straight wire
with gain'... that's the theory.

One of Robert's design goals included reconstituting
audiophile fidelity as a system qualification. My
inquiry concerned the apparent reversal in the use of
common audio equipment review
methodologies/protocols to achieve his audiophile
fidelity goal. It's not often that one falls into anything
"good" employing/using the shotgun method.

"soundhaspriority" wrote

Thus, there are three different types of preamp
in the system:
1. Native Tascam

Field work... Zzzzz

2. M-Audio DMP3

Field work... Zzzzz

3. Apogee Mini-Me

The new paradigm...cutting edge. Apogee
Mini-Me, Dual core notebook, camera & tripod,
studio mic's & cables and one car battery.
That's a fully operational studio. One which can
create the final package mastered to DVD for
reproduction. This has some interesting business
applications. Properly packed it would fit
nicely in the bottom of my canoe, too.


I don't know where the Mini-Me fits, quality wise, but it is at least very
good.
"very good"... you won't know that until
you get your hand dirty, as Arny might say.
Hope it works out.


There is not a lot of dependency between condenser mikes and preamps,
because the dynamics of the capsule are decoupled by the mike preamp. On
the other hand, condensers and ribbons do interact strongly with the
preamp, requiring additional consideration.

Ultimately, you're intellectualizing your decision
making process giving them more weight at
expense of hands-on empirical experiences.
Maybe that's pro-audio way but its not normal
audiophile practices to attaining high fidelity.


From the discussion here, I gather that each signal path is likely to be
distinguished by the preamp. Apparently mic preamps, as simple as they
are, have significant qualities of dynamic range, transparency, and even
noise.
Agreed. But I would point out that even the top
microphone manufactures are using technology
that audiophile phono-amplifier designers have
been using for some twenty years. It's mostly
trickle-down technology concerning
pro-equipment. I guess the good news is that
the digital technology chain (like Mini-Me)
keeps marching toward the true holdup to HD
in fidelity, the microphone transducer.


As well, the Mini-Me has the best A/D converters.
OSAF.


The built-in compressor/soft limiter may mandate use of the Mini-Me for
certain sources.

Gack. All editing should be conducted
in the digital domain.


The main facet of the problem is matching an input to the appropriate use,
not the appropriate mike, the choice of which is also subject to the use.

Decisions, decisions, decisions. Is this a
business decision expenditure (tax write-off)
question or are you just shining a new
hobby-horse, Robert?

"Powell" wrote in message
...

"soundhaspriority" wrote

Thus, there are three different types of preamp
in the system:
1. Native Tascam

Field work... Zzzzz

2. M-Audio DMP3

Field work... Zzzzz

3. Apogee Mini-Me

The new paradigm...cutting edge. Apogee
Mini-Me, Dual core notebook, camera & tripod,
studio mic's & cables and one car battery.
That's a fully operational studio. One which can
create the final package mastered to DVD for
reproduction. This has some interesting business
applications. Properly packed it would fit
nicely in the bottom of my canoe, too.

HD editing on a laptop is not here yet, except for very small stuff. When
laptops come with external SATA ports, it is a possibility. The principle
factor is that post production is a very lengthy process. The car battery
woh't power the laptop. The equivalent weight of lithiums is a fortune.

However, it is very practical to edit audio on a laptop.


I don't know where the Mini-Me fits, quality wise, but it is at least
very
good.
"very good"... you won't know that until
you get your hand dirty, as Arny might say.
Hope it works out.


There is not a lot of dependency between condenser mikes and preamps,
because the dynamics of the capsule are decoupled by the mike preamp. On
the other hand, condensers and ribbons do interact strongly with the
preamp, requiring additional consideration.

Ultimately, you're intellectualizing your decision
making process giving them more weight at
expense of hands-on empirical experiences.
Maybe that's pro-audio way but its not normal
audiophile practices to attaining high fidelity.

It's not for either. But it's necessary to have a presentable kit in advance
of the work. If I were a studio employee, or someone in the loop, a more
experimental approach would be available.

From the discussion here, I gather that each signal path is likely to be
distinguished by the preamp. Apparently mic preamps, as simple as they
are, have significant qualities of dynamic range, transparency, and even
noise.
Agreed. But I would point out that even the top
microphone manufactures are using technology
that audiophile phono-amplifier designers have
been using for some twenty years. It's mostly
trickle-down technology concerning
pro-equipment.

What makes you say that?

I guess the good news is that
the digital technology chain (like Mini-Me)
keeps marching toward the true holdup to HD
in fidelity, the microphone transducer.


As well, the Mini-Me has the best A/D converters.
OSAF.


The built-in compressor/soft limiter may mandate use of the Mini-Me for
certain sources.

Gack. All editing should be conducted
in the digital domain.

The compressor/limiter is digital, and prevents the dreaded 0 dB digital
crash.

The main facet of the problem is matching an input to the appropriate
use,
not the appropriate mike, the choice of which is also subject to the use.

Decisions, decisions, decisions. Is this a
business decision expenditure (tax write-off)
question or are you just shining a new
hobby-horse, Robert?

Both. Tax writeoff will be determined by use.

soundhaspriority wrote:
Thanks to all. It looks like it's going to be the Apogee Mini-Me.

The next question refers to allocating channels of unequal quality. This is
what the setup looks like:

Tascam FW-1082 firewire board, http://www.tascam.com/Products/fw1082.html.
It has four onboard pres. Four more channels are in the form of two Midiman
DMP3's, http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_us/DMP3-main.html

The Tascam's SP/DIF will be fed by the Apogee Mini-Me.

This means that the channels will be of unequal quality. So, how to allocate
them? In the case of a vocalist backed by a band, it seems logical that the
vocalist(s) should be on the Mini-Me. In other situations, this is less
clear. Suppose I'm recording a chamber music quintet, which might
incorporate a variety of instruments. I would want to use coincident stereo
mic, in combination with mics for the various instruments.

1. Is the distant coincident mic the most critical?
2. Is there a clear ranking for criticality of the feed for the following:
sax, oboe, trumpet, violin, cello, bass?

Tia
Bob


Get yourself a set of Schoeps CMC6 bodies with omni (MK2S or MK2H;
David Satz, Scott Dorsey or Ty Ford will tell you which is best for
your specific hall) and hypercard (MK41) capsules and a decent stereo
bar and jecklin disk (roughly about $4.5K). This will cover the vast
majority of usable options in your case. Eventually you can add 2
figure 8s and an M/S decoder and have every imaginable stereo technique
available to you. Don't bother about using spot mics on location. Or,
really, ever, with classical music. If you REALLY care about the
balance being right, have rehearsals in the room with the musicians
playing the music, record them and make suggestions to the ensemble.
If it's a live performance, it's about the balance in the hall during
the performance, you're only there to capture what happens. Help the
musicians with the balance in the hall without headphones, THEN place
your mics where you like the sound best. If you think that the balance
for human hearing in the hall is not the balance you want on the
recording, record the rehearsals while making suggestions to the
musicians. In a modestly reverberant room (such as appropriate for
chamber performance) and with the musicians arranged for performance,
your spot mics, even if they are all CMC641s or equivalents, are going
to (at best) change the balance and the sound (because of bleed) into
something very different from live performance - this may be something
you want, but MUCH more often than not, with this genre, it isn't. Try
to solve acoustic problems acoustically, and in the case of classical
music, they are almost always acoustic. You made the right choice by
getting a top notch preamp/ADC, now do the same with mics (and general
approach) and you're well on your way.

With regard to the ensemble described: assuming a reasonable quality
arrangement/composition, (FF violin and FF tpt produce very different
SPLs, the arranger/composer should know that, as well as ranges -
middle C on oboe is going to sound loud and honky, no matter what you
write in the score), here are the potential problems with your group:

Sax: Assuming alto here, the most popular choice in classical music -
good players with good instuments can tame the "annoying" part of the
range (roughly concert G above middle C on up) and will taper their
dynamics to the horn. Hopefully the sound that the performer gets will
be sufficiently "smooth" so it doesn't fight with the reediness of the
oboe. You can place him a bit further from the mics, if you have the
luxury of arranging the musicians.

Oboe: Easy, unless you are dealing with bad players or the composer has
written a lot of stuff below the E above middle C. In the ensemble you
describe, try to place him/her opposite the trumpet in the stereo
field.

Trumpet: Put this one the furthest away, but tell him/her to try to
play on-axis with the mics, at least in the horizontal plane.
Conversely, if he/she HAS to be close, try to get the performer to play
off-axis with mics. All the while, you don't want an ambient
perspective TOO different from the rest of the group. If the trumpet
and violin are competing for range, this will likely be a problem;
solve it by varying the distance between the individual performers and
the stereo pair.

Violin: The victim of most balance wars. You want it closest to the
mics. Evaluate with the performer playing by himself and place the
mics just out of reach of most contact noise - some will inevitably
happen, that's ok, part of the sound, but you don't want bow scrape
noice. Most condenser mics, and most definitely (IME) the Schoeps are
not going to sound great right on top of the violin. For the
recording, you may ask the violinist to "scale up" the dynamics, while
keeping others constant. This goes for bass as well. If the violin
and trumpet are competing for range, it will be a problem - solve by
varying distances between the two instruments. You may get some
amazing player with some amazing instrument, which would alleviate the
balance issues; most of the time, this is not the case.

Cello: considerably louder than the violin and usually written
siginificantly lower than the rest of your ensemble, with the exception
of the bass. The great thing about cello is that it gains quite a bit
of power as it goes up in range, so even if there is some high part
written for it, it's usually soloistic - other instruments will play
softer, if the arranger/composer knows his/her stuff. You probably
don't have to worry much about this as it's fairly loud and _normally_
occupies a range distinct from the other instruments in your group.

Bass: Quite soft with a bow, and, unlike the cello, will LOSE power
high up. Hopefully the arrangement was written carefully, if not,
there's really not a whole lot you can do. You will lose the extreme
low end (especially with a five-string) if you're using hypers, but, as
it's the only instrument in your group with REAL low end, you can
compensate with EQ. Just make sure your room is well isolated from
traffic/AC rumble and watch out for tapping/walking/moving feet on
stage or on the floor so that you're able to use the low band of the
EQ. Will sound better with omnis. Naturally, try to place him/her in
the center - there's nothing particularly wrong with the bass being off
to one side, but most people with decent systems or in headphones will
not like the sound. I'd say up to 25-30 degrees to either side is
fine, more than that and you need to be careful.

Piano: Really depends on the part and the player. You may want
half-stick open or closed completely, but likely NOT open all the way,
unless it's a solo part or it's a modern composition with the performer
reaching inside the instrument to pluck/mute/make other sounds.

All these musician arrangement suggestions are of course secondary to
the sightlines between performers who WILL need to look at each other,
and, possibly :-), the conductor. The performance is ALWAYS most
important, the greatest sound in the world will not compensate for
lackluster content. If you're really, _REALLY_ serious, get a copy of
the conductor's score ahead of the rehearsal/performance/recording
session, study it for potential trouble spots and mark splicing
locations. If you're really nuts, ensure access to a xerox machine
on/near the site and copy/cut/paste/staple/glue/tape/whatever together
the musicians' parts to eliminate, or, at least, minimize page turns
(based on the splice points you've established and agreed upon with the
performers). Oh, if you DO splice, make sure you get lots of overlap
between sections and tempo homogeneity - this means being able to
monitor different spots quickly - MARK/LABEL YOUR TAKE TIMES!!! Neatly,
BTW, so that if someone else has to edit your stuff they don't have use
a CIA cryptographer to decypher your scribblings. It also means being
able to count out tempos for the musicians. A tempo map and a
metronome might come in VERY handy. In an ideal world, you won't need
to splice - alas, this one rarely is.

One last thing: if you have a noisy hall, try to record a half-minute
of silence before and after the performance/session. This way you can
apply noise reduction later, if you MUST (last resort ONLY). If you
have a long session, do so every half-hour to an hour, as the noise
floor will change.

The above is my personal experience and estimation based on the info
I've been given - your mileage may (and most likely will) vary. If
you find something different, come back and tell your story, I (and
others I am sure) would be more than happy to learn from it.

Oh, BTW, when you can, get rid of your 1802 and get an interface with
multichannel digital I/O, so you can upgrade your pres/converters
later, when you decide you want to do jazz/pop/rock/whatever else and
really do NEED more than two inputs. But, for now, focus on the mics,
far more important.

Whoa, this is long. Apologies to all and note to self to take it easy
on the coffee.

Peace and good luck,
--Vas

"Robert Morein" wrote in message


HD editing on a laptop is not here yet, except for very
small stuff.

Nuts!

People are doing multitrack recording and editing on laptops all the time.

When laptops come with external SATA ports,
it is a possibility.

SATA is not even a relevant issue. I've been recording and editing 30 to 90
minute sessions with 12-28 tracks on PATA drives for 2-3 years now.

The principle factor is that post production is a very lengthy process.

True but not that much of a drive performance issue. It is generally
accpeted practice to do extensive post-production work by means of
non-destructive editing. The key performance benchmark in non-destructive
editing is obtaining clean playback of the multitrack master. If you can
record it and save it, you generally can play it. Editing is usually the
easier challenge, disk performance-wise.

I even once edited multitracks (8-16 tracks) for about a year on a P3-666
system with 5400 rpm ATA-66 drives. I did have occasional problems with
clicks and pops during playback (the recording was done on a Athlon 2000+
with ATA-100 drives) but I just worked around them.

The car battery won't power the laptop.

Use an inverter. By the time the power gets through the laptop's external
switchmode power supply, it will be more than pure enough.

The equivalent weight of lithiums is a fortune.

Wet cells are still in the picture.

However, it is very practical to edit audio on a laptop.

It's also very practical to record it. The RAP archives have a number of
sucess stories.

You can even get large 7200 rpm drives for laptops now.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Robert Morein" wrote in message


HD editing on a laptop is not here yet, except for very
small stuff.

Nuts!

People are doing multitrack recording and editing on laptops all the time.

Arny, when I said HD, I meant High Definition Video.
Everything you say in response is correct, but I wasn't addressing audio.

"vas" wrote in message
oups.com...
soundhaspriority wrote:
Thanks to all. It looks like it's going to be the Apogee Mini-Me.

The next question refers to allocating channels of unequal quality. This
is
what the setup looks like:

Tascam FW-1082 firewire board,
http://www.tascam.com/Products/fw1082.html.
It has four onboard pres. Four more channels are in the form of two
Midiman
DMP3's, http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_us/DMP3-main.html

The Tascam's SP/DIF will be fed by the Apogee Mini-Me.

This means that the channels will be of unequal quality. So, how to
allocate
them? In the case of a vocalist backed by a band, it seems logical that
the
vocalist(s) should be on the Mini-Me. In other situations, this is less
clear. Suppose I'm recording a chamber music quintet, which might
incorporate a variety of instruments. I would want to use coincident
stereo
mic, in combination with mics for the various instruments.

1. Is the distant coincident mic the most critical?
2. Is there a clear ranking for criticality of the feed for the
following:
sax, oboe, trumpet, violin, cello, bass?

Tia
Bob


Get yourself a set of Schoeps CMC6 bodies with omni (MK2S or MK2H;
David Satz, Scott Dorsey or Ty Ford will tell you which is best for
your specific hall) and hypercard (MK41) capsules and a decent stereo
bar and jecklin disk (roughly about $4.5K).

Good advice, can't afford. I will file this away for future consideration,
thanks.

"Powell" wrote in message
...

"Agent 86" wrote

Do you believe the Apogee Mini-Me will be
a universal fit with all/most special use mics?

It should be a pretty good fit with all/most any
kind of mic, but that doesn't mean you'll never
find a preamp that works better with a given
microphone. While there are exceptions, a good
preamp should work acceptably with most any
mic you throw at it.

"It should be""a good preamp"... well, yes and no.
That's a metaphor just like saying 'straight wire
with gain'... that's the theory.

One of Robert's design goals included reconstituting
audiophile fidelity as a system qualification. My
inquiry concerned the apparent reversal in the use of
common audio equipment review
methodologies/protocols to achieve his audiophile
fidelity goal. It's not often that one falls into anything
"good" employing/using the shotgun method.


Powell, you're right, of course. The situation I'm in requires that I go out
and experiment on "customers", albeit not for remuneration. That's how I'll
learn. But I cannot summon these people just to try out gear. I have to have
enough to actually provide them with some kind of a service. Many or most of
the Chinese mikes are serviceable, or actually, very good knock-offs of
German brands with well known performance characteristics and long history
of use. There are actually two classes of condenser microphones:
1. Small diaphram condenser, where the diaphram is less than or equal to
20mm in diameter, which are unimpressive looking little tubes. These are the
mikes said to be of use for accurate reproduction, widely used in classical
distance miking, as well as spot miking musical instruments. These are
plentiful, cheap, very good, and almost interchangeable.

2. Large diaphram condenser, where the diaphram is 25mm in diameter or
greater. These are the recording professional's equivalent to vinyl. They
are chosen for distinctive sound modifying characteristics. Every one of
them sounds different. They are the most common choice for vocals, but some
are used for instrumental work as well. Because the off axis frequency
response is ragged, they are not technically perfect. When the microphone is
placed close to the sound source, it exhibits "proximity effect", which
results in a bass boost. Many of these microphones use tubes and/or
transformers for further coloration.

In response to your question, it is mainly with respect to the choice of
large diaphram condenser mikes that the specifications are almost useless.
Some of these devices are famous in and of themselves, such as the Neumann
U87, but only by the sound.

With respect to the rest of the chain, there is, of course, a school of
thought complimentary to the hifi "high end", in the form of exotic preamps,
some using transformers and tubes. Some are very quiet. Some are noisy and
distinctive. Auxilary pieces, such as tube compressors, are frequently
patched in. However, none of this stuff is convenient to carry around.
Furthermore, the current prevailing opinion of professionals, as opposed to
the "project studio" crowd, the inexpensive stuff, under $1K, that has such
an allure, and has a tube, is not neutral. In contrast to audiophile
thinking, professionals seem to want "clean", or "neutral", as opposed to
"subjectively good." You may have followed a previous thread, in which I
asked for opinions about the ART DMPAII:
http://www.stratcollector.com/scn/re...al_Outs.h tml
To an audiophile, this might seem a very attractive piece. It has a tube. It
has a switch that enables a mode of "tubey" sound. The pros trashed me for
it. The simple fact that it has a mode of deliberate distortion was
offensive to them. Ultimately, in respect of their collective wisdom, I
dropped it from consideration. At least it's 12 lbs I don't have to carry

Professionals seem to think about equipment choices differently from
audiophiles. One aspect that I particularly admire is the lack of concern
for appearance. You can sell a mic preamp to the pro crowd in a ****ty
plastic box with wiggly connectors on the back for $500,
http://www.fmraudio.com/RNP8380.htm. It just has to sound accurate.

"soundhaspriority"
wrote in message news
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Robert Morein" wrote in message


HD editing on a laptop is not here yet, except for very
small stuff.

Nuts!

People are doing multitrack recording and editing on
laptops all the time.
Arny, when I said HD, I meant High Definition Video.
Everything you say in response is correct, but I wasn't
addressing audio.

If you want to change horses that profoundly, maybe a new thread would be a
good idea.

"Robert Morein" wrote

3. Apogee Mini-Me

The new paradigm...cutting edge. Apogee
Mini-Me, Dual core notebook, camera & tripod,
studio mic's & cables and one car battery.
That's a fully operational studio. One which can
create the final package mastered to DVD for
reproduction. This has some interesting business
applications. Properly packed it would fit
nicely in the bottom of my canoe, too.

HD editing on a laptop is not here yet, except for very small stuff.

By that you mean what? HD video editing software
is abundant. USB 2 connection should easily handle
HDTV streams ( 55Mbit/s or 11% of what USB 2.0
offers). A notebook with two USB's (mini-me to
notebook/ HD camera to notebook) should cover it,
no?


When laptops come with external SATA ports, it is a possibility. The
principle factor is that post production is a very lengthy process.

A 7,200 rpm w/100 GB hardrive, would hold
more than one could shoot in a day.


The car battery won't power the laptop.

Sure-it-would. Next time you Armorall your
car dash you might check out the two to three
12 Volt adaptors... those arn't 3 cigetette
lighters in a row.


From the discussion here, I gather that each signal path is likely to
be
distinguished by the preamp. Apparently mic preamps, as simple as they
are, have significant qualities of dynamic range, transparency, and even
noise.
Agreed. But I would point out that even the top
microphone manufactures are using technology
that audiophile phono-amplifier designers have
been using for some twenty years. It's mostly
trickle-down technology concerning
pro-equipment.

What makes you say that?

The money for the design is in the group that can
support the expense. Pro-audio, for the most part,
is low quality oriented and designed for durability,
based on users needs.

OTOH, audiophiles have financially supported
extravagant designs purely for fidelity preferences
for a couple of decades. That's true today. For
example, Pro-audio mic pre-amps -vs- audiophile
phono pre-amps. Similar design category. Lets
compare SOTA for all 2 channel models over
$2,500.

All Pro-audio manufactures:
7 manufactures - 8 models

All Audiophile manufactures:
27 manufactures - 33 models

That's a 4 to 1 ratio. It's clear from the money
trail where the electronic technology resides.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"soundhaspriority"
wrote in message news
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Robert Morein" wrote in message


HD editing on a laptop is not here yet, except for very
small stuff.

Nuts!

People are doing multitrack recording and editing on
laptops all the time.
Arny, when I said HD, I meant High Definition Video.
Everything you say in response is correct, but I wasn't
addressing audio.

If you want to change horses that profoundly, maybe a new thread would be
a good idea.
Arny, Powell said, "camera and tripod."

"soundhaspriority" wrote

In response to your question, it is mainly with respect to the choice of
large diaphram condenser
mikes that the specifications are almost useless. Some of these devices
are famous in and of themselves, such as the Neumann U87, but only by the
sound.

Ok.

With respect to the rest of the chain, there is, of course, a school of
thought complimentary to the hifi "high end", in the form of exotic
preamps, some using transformers and tubes. Some are very quiet. Some are
noisy and distinctive. Auxilary pieces, such as tube compressors, are
frequently patched in. However, none of this stuff is convenient to carry
around.
Ok.


Furthermore, the current prevailing opinion of professionals, as opposed
to the "project studio" crowd, the inexpensive stuff, under $1K, that has
such an allure, and has a tube, is not neutral.
True. Funny how the "professionals" base that opinion
on driving the pre-amp to distortion. Maybe that a factor
explaining why so much music sounds like junk. I don't
record to distortion levels, myself.


In contrast to audiophile thinking, professionals seem to want "clean", or
"neutral", as opposed to "
subjectively good."
More of the do-as-I-say, not-as-I do.


You may have followed a previous thread, in which I asked for opinions
about the ART DMPAII:
http://www.stratcollector.com/scn/re...al_Outs.h tml
To an audiophile, this might seem a very attractive piece. It has a tube.
It has a switch that enables a mode of "tubey" sound. The pros trashed me
for it. The simple fact that it has a mode of deliberate distortion was
offensive to them.
In regards to a ART MPA Pro to M-Audio Delta 192, for
example, the tube can provide some flexibility in sound
shaping. The flexibility comes from the interplay between
the microphone traducer and the tube pre-amp on one hand
and the variable pot located on the line output in the other.

The installed tube is somewhat tolerant of overloaded but
I don't think that's the selling point/application for most
users. Replacing the stock Penta-China tubes, for example,
with highly sorted RAM Sovtek 12AX7 a usable dB gain
was added before it tips to distortion. The usable fidelity
gain before the distortion and then trimming the line level
pot to the optimum setting the sound card desires.


Ultimately, in respect of their collective wisdom, I dropped it from
consideration. At least it's 12 lbs I don't have to carry

Professionals seem to think about equipment choices differently from
audiophiles. One aspect that I particularly admire is the lack of concern
for appearance. You can sell a mic preamp to the pro crowd in a ****ty
plastic box with wiggly connectors on the back for $500,
http://www.fmraudio.com/RNP8380.htm. It just has to sound accurate.

Yea, I looked at that model, too. In addition to other
issues I wouldn't purchase any mic pre-amp that
didn't have a output level control.

"Powell" wrote in message
...

"Robert Morein" wrote

3. Apogee Mini-Me

The new paradigm...cutting edge. Apogee
Mini-Me, Dual core notebook, camera & tripod,
studio mic's & cables and one car battery.
That's a fully operational studio. One which can
create the final package mastered to DVD for
reproduction. This has some interesting business
applications. Properly packed it would fit
nicely in the bottom of my canoe, too.

HD editing on a laptop is not here yet, except for very small stuff.

By that you mean what? HD video editing software
is abundant. USB 2 connection should easily handle
HDTV streams ( 55Mbit/s or 11% of what USB 2.0
offers). A notebook with two USB's (mini-me to
notebook/ HD camera to notebook) should cover it,
no?

This chart explains:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/win...HDFormats.aspx
If you are referring to HDV, then modest disk bandwidth is all that is
required. However, there are now fairly reasonable cameras that record
uncompressed. This is what all would-be film makers want. HDV has
unacceptable motion artifacts for critical work. According to the chart,
uncompressed HD in the popular 720p requires 332 megabits/second raw
bandwidth. It is surprising how protocol and latency up the requirements.
The actual number is usually determined by experiment on a workstation.

"soundhaspriority"

HD editing on a laptop is not here yet, except for very small stuff.

By that you mean what? HD video editing software
is abundant. USB 2 connection should easily handle
HDTV streams ( 55Mbit/s or 11% of what USB 2.0
offers). A notebook with two USB's (mini-me to
notebook/ HD camera to notebook) should cover it,
no?

This chart explains:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/win...HDFormats.aspx
If you are referring to HDV, then modest disk bandwidth is all that is
required. However, there are now fairly reasonable cameras that record
uncompressed. This is what all would-be film makers want. HDV has
unacceptable motion artifacts for critical work. According to the chart,
uncompressed HD in the popular 720p requires 332 megabits/second raw
bandwidth. It is surprising how protocol and latency up the requirements.
The actual number is usually determined by experiment on a workstation.

In any event you can still off-load UBS/firewire to the
notebook. But as I noted previously it brings up the
complication of audio synchronizing in the video
editing program. What video editor are you using now?

What "film makers" type HD camera, for example,
are you refering to?