Hi,

I'm after recommendations for a pair of SDCs, principally for recording very delicate/soft/quiet solo fingerstyle acoustic guitar, but also whatever else finds its way into the studio. I have some 2 x Studio Project C4 but am considering upgrading. I also have 2 x DPA 4060s which - whilst they sound lovely - have high self noise (23 db A weighted - full spec here http://www.srtalumni.com/SRT_Manuals/DPA_4060_Microphone.pdf) which makes them of limited use to me.

Ideally I'm after something with swappable caps - so I've got both omni and cardiod covered.

I'd be happy to sell the C4s, and maybe my AT4033a and DPAs, if buying something with the proceeds - and perhaps some extra - would get me an appreciable step up in quality. I'd love a pair of Gefel M300s, but that'd beyond the budget. So say £400-700 ish for the pair. But would splashing £1k make a further worthwhile difference?

By way of context, the other mics I've have are 1 x CAD VX2 (lovely, but slightly noisy in fig-8 or omni) and 3 x CAD M179s.

I guess usual suspects are the Oktava MK-012, Rode NT55, SE2A, AKG C451B (with extra caps). Any comments? Is there anything else I should be considering.

Many thanks,

Dan

NT55 hands down IMHO. Those mic's represent one of my best investments. I wouldn't be averse to others in your list (a pair of 451s have been on my list forever!), but for the money you just can't go wrong.

--------------------
An Eagle for an Emperor, A Kestrel for a Knave.

I'd vote for the Rode NT55 as well. Self noise is a very respectable (for a SDC) 16dBA, and they represent very good value for money.

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

I like the Chameleon Labs TS-1.

Happy NT55 user here......

Bob

--------------------
www.bickerton.co.nz

I've got a matched pair of second hand NT5's for which I bought the NT45/O omni heads. Also very happy.

CC

--------------------
Put the fun back into dysfunctional.
Mr Punch's Studio

Cheep! , useful, but with a high-end bump.

--------------------
PA stuff on FB

Although I would love you to buy a pair of Gefell M300 I do agree with the others that the Røde NT55 are probably the best "bang for the buck" at the affordable end. The omni heads do seem to be exceptional for the price.

To get better than the NT55 you really are beginning to look at the Gefell M300, the Neumann KM180 series and the like - all in the £1,000 bracket.

--------------------
John - Sound-Link ProAudio
President - Federation Internationale des Chasseurs de Sons

Quote John Willett:

---

Although I would love you to buy a pair of Gefell M300 I do agree with the others that the Røde NT55 are probably the best "bang for the buck" at the affordable end. The omni heads do seem to be exceptional for the price.

To get better than the NT55 you really are beginning to look at the Gefell M300, the Neumann KM180 series and the like - all in the £1,000 bracket.

---

Well, he could buy Beyerdynamic MC930 which are in budget and very nice. However he would only get cardoid.

Reg

--------------------
Google less; read more!

Quote John Willett:

---

Although I would love you to buy a pair of Gefell M300 I do agree with the others that the Røde NT55 are probably the best "bang for the buck" at the affordable end. The omni heads do seem to be exceptional for the price.

To get better than the NT55 you really are beginning to look at the Gefell M300, the Neumann KM180 series and the like - all in the £1,000 bracket.

---

I have not ever tried the Rode NT55's but I have tried the Gefell M300's and I was really very, very impressed with them. In this comparative price bracket (Gefell/Neumann etc) I would not imagine you could do better, and personally I would take the Gefell's over a similar priced Neumann.

Quote Ariosto:

---

Quote John Willett:

---

Although I would love you to buy a pair of Gefell M300 I do agree with the others that the Røde NT55 are probably the best "bang for the buck" at the affordable end. The omni heads do seem to be exceptional for the price.

To get better than the NT55 you really are beginning to look at the Gefell M300, the Neumann KM180 series and the like - all in the £1,000 bracket.

---

I have not ever tried the Rode NT55's but I have tried the Gefell M300's and I was really very, very impressed with them. In this comparative price bracket (Gefell/Neumann etc) I would not imagine you could do better, and personally I would take the Gefell's over a similar priced Neumann.

---

Absolutely, the Gefell is a far superior mike with an excellent voicing.

Reg

--------------------
Google less; read more!

Quote RegressiveRock:

---

Absolutely, the Gefell is a far superior mike with an excellent voicing.

---

Depends on your definition of better!

On a technical level, the Neumann KM184 has a 2dB higher output and 3dB lower self noise than either the Gefell M300 or the Rode NT55 (cardioid), and while the Beyer MC930's output is a massive 6dB higher than the Neumann's it still has 3dB more self noise.

The Neumann also requires much less phantom power current and has a much lower output impedance than any of those other mics -- meaning it will work better at the end of long mic cables. It's also much lighter and shorter than any of them too, so more discrete and easier to fly... So in many ways the Neumann is surely 'far superior' ?

However, all three do have quite audibly different voicings, and if you had all three available you might well choose one over the other for a specific purpose. I'm not sure any one would be perfect in all situations, but all are certainly very capable.

However, only the NT55 is available with both omni and cardioid capsules, and falls within the budget, which were specific requirements of the OP.

Hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

Quote RegressiveRock:

---

Absolutely, the Gefell is a far superior mike with an excellent voicing.

---

Depends on your definition of better!

On a technical level, the Neumann KM184 has a 2dB higher output and 3dB lower self noise than either the Gefell M300 or the Rode NT55 (cardioid). It also requires much less phantom power current and has a much lower output impedance -- meaning it will work better at the end of long mic cables. It's also much lighter and shorter than either of the other mics... So in many ways the Neumann is surely 'far superior' ?

However, all three do have quite audibly different voicings, and if you had all three available you might well choose one over the other for a specific purpose. I'm not sure either one would be perfect in all situations, but all are certainly very capable.

However, only the NT55 is available with both omni and cardioid capsules, and falls within the budget, which were specific requirements of the OP.

Hugh

---

Hugh

With respect to your arguments all of which are technically valid and carefully thought out where as mine are as much about my general liking for the way mikes make certain instruments wound, I could not care if the M300 was taped like a large pink dildo with the all the embarrassment that would entail in using it. It produces the most easily mixable results of all of those mikes in most of the common scenarios which present themselves (admittedly to me) which is why Gefell are able to charge such a premium for them.

I would have thought you would be more in my school of thought bearing in mind your taste in jumpers, or has that one gone to the great laundry in the sky?

...and yes, if he want both caps then he is shopping Rode or the less predictable Oktava in that price range...

Reg

--------------------
Google less; read more!

Quote Dan B:

---

I guess usual suspects are the Oktava MK-012, Rode NT55, SE2A, AKG C451B (with extra caps). Any comments? Is there anything else I should be considering.

---

I'd have recommended the NT55s, as many people already have on this thread, and Shure's KSM 141s are also good, but recently I've had the opportunity to try out the Avantone CK1s, and my initial impressions are very favourable, so I'd certainly add those to your shortlist. The thing I like about them is that they don't seem to have the same sort of 'hardness' to them that many SDCs (especially the SE Electronics ones I've tried) seem to have in the upper midrange, which is why I'm beginning to gravitate towards them for things like strings and acoustic guitar.

--------------------
Mixing Secrets for the Small Studio
A complete mixing method based around the techniques of the world's most famous producers.

I haven't used the NT55's but have NT5's (cardioid only). I also have the Oktavas with both cardioid and omni capsules. Personally I prefer the Oktavas in general but,as alluded to, their quality control in not always up to scratch. I've been lucky.

Cheers
Graham

Quote RegressiveRock:

---

It produces the most easily mixable results of all of those mikes in most of the common scenarios which present themselves (admittedly to me)...

---

Hey Reg, I'm not 'dissing' the M300, or your view of its sound character -- it is a very lovely mic in a lot of important ways. It was just that your sweepingly emphatic statement set off my BS detector and I couldn't control the inner pedant to highlight that there might be other aspects to consider too... The M300 does have excellent voicing, and that might make it preferable in many situations... but it is not 'far superior' than the others in every way.

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

Quote RegressiveRock:

---

It produces the most easily mixable results of all of those mikes in most of the common scenarios which present themselves (admittedly to me)...

---

Hey Reg, I'm not 'dissing' the M300, or your view of its sound character -- it is a very lovely mic in a lot of important ways. It was just that your sweepingly emphatic statement set off my BS detector and I couldn't control the inner pedant to highlight that there might be other aspects to consider too... The M300 does have excellent voicing, and that might make it preferable in many situations... but it is not 'far superior' than the others in every way.

hugh

---

I know Hugh, I just thought the only way to go was be even more high-handed and get a good dig in about your dress sense. I find that always makes me friends and influences people,

I am the first to admit my Gefellophilia is as intense as my Behringophobia, followed by a pretty full on case Macheadedness depute the fact that my latest iMac is a huge disappointment stability-wise.

It's probably best not to listen to me. My BSing abilities are legendary!

Reg

--------------------
Google less; read more!

Thanks for the suggestions so far.

Lots of support for the NT55 - tempting, not least because of the price! Though I wonder how much better they'd be than my Studio Project C4s (mk 1)?

I'll consider some of the other options too.

If I were to forgo the omni requirement, would that change things up dramatically? E.g. would the step up in price to MC930 be worthwhile? Or I could get a pair of NT5s for nearly half the price of the NT55s? (Could always add the Rode NT45-o omni caps afterwards to the NT5s, I'd it'd still be cheaper than the NT55 set).

Dilemmas dilemmas...!

Edited by Dan B (04/07/12 07:06 PM)

Quote Dan B:

---

If I were to forgo the omni requirement, would that change things up dramatically?

---

Well, I'd mention Neumann KM184s.

And if that isn't dramatic enough for you...

Dramatic

Quote Dan B:

---

(Could always add the Rode NT45-o omni caps afterwards to the NT5s, I'd it'd still be cheaper than the NT55 set)

---

But you'd have to forgo the low-cut and pad switches, both of which can be important attributes and worth the additional cost of the NT55s IMO.

--------------------
An Eagle for an Emperor, A Kestrel for a Knave.

Quote Dan B:

---

Thanks for the suggestions so far.

Lots of support for the NT55 - tempting, not least because of the price! Though I wonder how much better they'd be than my Studio Project C4s (mk 1)?

I'll consider some of the other options too.

If I were to forgo the omni requirement, would that change things up dramatically? E.g. would the step up in price to MC930 be worthwhile? Or I could get a pair of NT5s for nearly half the price of the NT55s? (Could always add the Rode NT45-o omni caps afterwards to the NT5s, I'd it'd still be cheaper than the NT55 set).

Dilemmas dilemmas...!

---

What you will find with MC930s (as with another favourite mike of mine the Gefell UM70 (that is an LDC not an SDC by the way)), is that they will not sound the most "impressive" in the shop. Other mikes will have a little bit more bite and the man in the showroom will say of "we've got these (the ones we are getting a great deal on) and I really like the way they sound".

When you get home however, you will find that your mixes have layer upon layer of that extra bite and are harder to resolve and worse sounding for it. The great thing about the the Beyers is that, like many well-thought-out mikes, they capture sound unobtrusively that drops into the mix very easily.

In my opinion, their voicing is at least as good as the much more expensive KM184 (which is also a fine mike, just one I think a couple of manufacturers can better these days).

However, one thing you should not expect is 100% improvement for a 100% price increase. The benefits of better design get more subtle as you step up the price range.

Importantly, however, the Beyers will hold their price well and will still be offering you good service in decades time. (Although Rode is now a very well established brand and hold their prices quite well also, just perhaps not as well as some of the key european brands).

Reg

--------------------
Google less; read more!

I'm not sure that the NT55s are a big step up from the C4s to be honest - they are both on the budget end. For a significant step up within your budget you are really looking second-hand.

For classic mics, around £400 you could have had (last week's auction on ebay) a pair of AKG C415E with CK1 capsules.
For new mics, Peluso CEM C6 and Beyerdynamic MC930 can be had in the £600 range new, so I'm guessing second-hand they might fall within your bracket.

Buy any of these three models and you will never need to upgrade.

By comparison, the cheapest I have seen Neumann KM184s is £700 (last week), but there are still shops selling them for £1200.

--------------------
Daniel Davis
Edinburgh Recording Studio Windmill Sound

I take it you're all dismissing the ludicrously cheap Samson kit with silly presence peak?

--------------------
PA stuff on FB

Quote Dan B:

---

Thanks for the suggestions so far.

Lots of support for the NT55 - tempting, not least because of the price! Though I wonder how much better they'd be than my Studio Project C4s (mk 1)?

I'll consider some of the other options too.

If I were to forgo the omni requirement, would that change things up dramatically? E.g. would the step up in price to MC930 be worthwhile? Or I could get a pair of NT5s for nearly half the price of the NT55s? (Could always add the Rode NT45-o omni caps afterwards to the NT5s, I'd it'd still be cheaper than the NT55 set).

Dilemmas dilemmas...!

---

I asked a similar question a couple of years ago and I'd say I was in a similar boat to you. I wanted something decent, but my mid-priced budget didn't stretch to high-end, so everyone kept saying stick with the Rodes.

In the end I bought the MC930s and they've been very impressive. Great, uncoloured off-axis sound, a higher presence peak that really translates as air rather than audible flattery etc. Unless your room is amazing, why don't you just get a pair of cardioids and experiment with those, then when you do get omnis you'll appreciate all the more their extended, natural sound!

I'd even make an argument against the MC930s, which is that when I do location recording in small rooms and the mics are forced into position very close to the audience, they are susceptible to mobile phone interference. Given the price of the Rodes I imagine they suffer from this too. I've since done A/B comparisons with my MC930s and KM183s and the Neumanns are completely immune, however close they are to a phone. I think engineering differences such as this begin to demonstrate why Neumann and others charge more. However, for some home users this kind of interference just wouldn't matter (you turn off your phone), and you might prefer the low-end extension, say, of the MC930s over the KM184s.

Also, I found an A/B comparison between the Rode omnis and Sennheiser MKH20s on a forum the other day. Obviously there is a huge price difference, but nonetheless I was still surprised by how wooly the Rodes sounded, in both the lows and upper mids/highs on loud bits. It was a dense texture (mixed choir + organ), so maybe the Rodes would be absolutely fine on a single instrument. But the MKH20s preserved the clarity of the organ pedal notes very well.

I suppose the overall point I'm making is that if you are half tempted to extent your budget, and you're looking to 'upgrade', why don't you wait a bit and make it an upgrade you won't feel needs upgrading again in a couple of years. If you were talking about upgrading preamps I'd say spend your money elsewhere:p But if you're considering £1000 you could find, say, MC930s and KM183s second hand for about £450 and £650 respectively. Maybe it's worth waiting a bit longer?

I found what the OP really wants!

They're really old, they must be cheap!

Reg

--------------------
Google less; read more!

Sold! Damn!!!!!!

Anyone know what they were priced at?

--------------------
An Eagle for an Emperor, A Kestrel for a Knave.

Quote The Elf:

---

Sold! Damn!!!!!!

Anyone know what they were priced at?

---

They probably would not have been worth it mate, Madooma are about the most expensive mike site I know!

Although they do do good mike porn!

Reg

--------------------
Google less; read more!

Quote The Elf:

---

Sold! Damn!!!!!!

Anyone know what they were priced at?

---

Just one capsule for £1,000+ I am afraid mate!

Reg

--------------------
Google less; read more!

I've paid more for less!

--------------------
An Eagle for an Emperor, A Kestrel for a Knave.

Quote:

---

I've paid more for less!

---

Not too sure why you are laughing so hard at that one LOLOL

Edited by whis4ey (07/07/12 10:03 AM)

Quote RegressiveRock:

---

I could not care if the M300 was taped like a large pink dildo with the all the embarrassment that would entail in using it. It produces the most easily mixable results of all of those mikes in most of the common scenarios which present themselves (admittedly to me) which is why Gefell are able to charge such a premium for them.

---

Not much of a premium.

The Gefell M300 retails at just £599 +VAT in the UK and a stereo set (matched pair), complete with stereo bar and riser, is £1,396.00 +VAT.

Though Gefell will do a matched pair of M300 as two singles at the same price as the singles without the stereo bar and riser (ie: pair match at no extra cost) - but this would have to be done specially and clearly stated on the order.

--------------------
John - Sound-Link ProAudio
President - Federation Internationale des Chasseurs de Sons

Hello Hugh,
Forgive me to barge in on this topic, but maybe my question
might be of interest to other readers as well.

You say here that the self-noise level of the microphone
in question is very respectable -- for a Small Diaphragm Condenser microphone .

Does this imply that Large Diaphragm Condenser Microphones
typically have a lower self-noise level?

Thank you for answering if you have a moment.
Regards,

--------------------
Patrick
http://soundcloud.com/pnl-2/drizzle

Larger diaphragm = greater sensitivity to changes in air pressure = greater potential S/N (other things being equal!).

--------------------
An Eagle for an Emperor, A Kestrel for a Knave.

Quote Pat Nghia Long:

---

Does this imply that Large Diaphragm Condenser Microphones
typically have a lower self-noise level?

---

Yes. The best large diaphragm mics have an equivalent noise floor of around 6dBA as opposed to small diaphragm mics which are up around the 15dBA mark (CCIR ratings). The reason is essentially that the larger diaphragm 'senses' the varying sound pressure over a much larger area, and so has a much greater signal to noise ratio.

Miniature diaphragm mics (like personal or lavalier mics, or some of the specialist instrument and ultra-wide bandwidth mics) are inherently noisier still.

Hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Quote Pat Nghia Long:

---

You say here that the self-noise level of the microphone
in question is very respectable -- for a Small Diaphragm Condenser microphone .

Does this imply that Large Diaphragm Condenser Microphones
typically have a lower self-noise level?

---

Yes, LDCs are inherently quieter than SDCs (the exception being the Sennheiser MKH series which get LDC noise levels from an SDC).

But, in other areas, SDCs are better than LDCs.

So you choose which is best for your application.

EG: A Range Rover and a Porsche 911 are both great cars, but you wouldn't use one for something that the other was designed for.

--------------------
John - Sound-Link ProAudio
President - Federation Internationale des Chasseurs de Sons

Hello Hugh,
Thank you very much for your answer. My apologies for taking so much time to aknowledge
and respond.
What you say confirms what I have experienced with the electret mics I have used so far, all of which have SD capsules, and even more so indeed with a lavalier model which generates a properly outrageous level of rich hiss.
Many thanks again for your precise ans instructive answer.
Regards,

--------------------
Patrick
http://soundcloud.com/pnl-2/drizzle

Quote John Willett:

---

Quote Pat Nghia Long:

---

You say here that the self-noise level of the microphone
in question is very respectable -- for a Small Diaphragm Condenser microphone .

Does this imply that Large Diaphragm Condenser Microphones
typically have a lower self-noise level?

---

Yes, LDCs are inherently quieter than SDCs (the exception being the Sennheiser MKH series which get LDC noise levels from an SDC).

But, in other areas, SDCs are better than LDCs.

So you choose which is best for your application.

EG: A Range Rover and a Porsche 911 are both great cars, but you wouldn't use one for something that the other was designed for.

---

Hello, and thank you for answering. I am sorry I have been taken up not in sound lately and I've been wanting for a long, long time, to thank Hugh and yourself for your helpful answers on this forum.

As regards priorities, for where I stand I really believe the absence of hiss is one of the key factors that separate a professional recording from an "end-consumer in his spare time" recording.

I believe that music is made of nuances, which range from fortississimo to the extremely quiet, and even to pure silence at times.

One example to illustrate this is a recording of Dvořák's 8th symphony, Wiener Philarmoniker directed by Karajan which I happily stumbled upon on YouTube lately (cf Dvořák's 8th, Karajan, 1985 - YouTube ). There are passages so quiet in this interpretation, that if there were any preamp noise or mic self-noise remaining in the recording it would actually ruin it artistically speaking. Music breathes so much better when the minima levels, let alone higher ones, are not cluttered with hiss, sizzle, or hum.

Another example is the technique addressed by Graham in his last on the "Recording Revolution" blog Dropping the bottom in a mix, where he demonstrates the method consisting in thinning out the arrangement at certain points of the song by temporarily muting the bass, the guitar, a percussion -- whatever it may be -- to bring them back in, for instance, before the chorus for added drama. In this case he does not leave the vocal standing bare and alone. Still there is far less audio information in these few bars where a couple of tracks are muted out of existence, so that if there were audible hiss in the mix, it would be a serious problem.

The third example that jumps to mind is spoken voice. Imagine the Sound on Sound Podcast if the recordings came with a hiss that would be either constant in the background or would come in and out following the speech as a result of noise-gating. It would merely ruin the listening experience and make the recording sound sub-professional.

Ergo, if LDC have as a rule less self noise that SDC, for me LDC are the only way to fly. Why bother spending money on the microphone itself, and on the necessary phantom power unit and preamplifier if it is to be faced with the struggle against hiss all over again. Especially as we now record digital...

There are definitely other parameters in line, but for me the condition sine qua non is a Signal to Noise Ratio as high as can be.

Regards,

--------------------
Patrick
http://soundcloud.com/pnl-2/drizzle

While John is right that in general LDCs are quieter than SDCs, there are many examples where the reverse is true. Valve-based LDCs are generally as noisy if not noisier than good SDCs, for example.

However, the microphone self-noise is virtually never an issue -- the recording spaces' ambient noise is usually an order of magnitude higher. Preamp noise can be a factor in very quiet venues, but mic self noise really isn't something that should be a major influence.

Characteristics like frequency response, polar pattern and off-axis coloration are all far more important.

For orchestral recording, I'd be more likely to choose and use SDCs than LDCs in at leat 50% of cases, if not more.

H

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

While John is right that in general LDCs are quieter than SDCs, there are many examples where the reverse is true. Valve-based LDCs are generally as noisy if not noisier than good SDCs, for example.

However, the microphone self-noise is virtually never an issue -- the recording spaces' ambient noise is usually an order of magnitude higher. Preamp noise can be a factor in very quiet venues, but mic self noise really isn't something that should be a major influence.

Characteristics like frequency response, polar pattern and off-axis colouration are all far more important.

For orchestral recording, I'd be more likely to choose and use SDCs than LDCs in at leat 50% of cases, if not more.

H

---

I agree - in fact almost *all* of my microphones are SDCs and I only have one or two LDCs in my kit.

For music recording I always use SDCs and only use the LDC for vocals.

Though there are quite a few LDCs that are fine for instrument recording - but these are often different from those you would use for vocals.

--------------------
John - Sound-Link ProAudio
President - Federation Internationale des Chasseurs de Sons

Quote:

---

However, the microphone self-noise is virtually never an issue -- the recording spaces' ambient noise is usually an order of magnitude higher. Preamp noise can be a factor in very quiet venues, but mic self noise really isn't something that should be a major influence."

---

Thank you for the feedback. I totally agree with what you say about ambient noise being a far greater problem in terms of level, when using professional gear.

Still, the lavalier mics used for interviews or for the newsreader on TV are seldom seen as an X-Y pair over the conductor, or to pick up the second violins, regardless of the fact the orchestra may be professional (and thus less noisy) or not, whether the audience attend in religious silence as in Bayreuth, or if there are people more mobile in the audience as at the Proms, for instance.

I do have the impression some transducers are actually noisy, and so can some preamps be... Or is it just me?

I have posted on soundcloud a very short example (13 seconds) I have just recorded of the floor level of noise coming from my MT-50, first will all the faders down, then with the fader controlling the volume for my SM58 up half-way, the output level of the MT-50 staying constant, and the line input fader of the sound card also.

The first part, with no signal coming from the faders reads -54dB on the Reaper fader meter during playback, and with the Shure 58 engaged I reach -48dB. So it would appear that most of the noise is not from my laptop, nor from the room ambience in general, but from the device acting as preamp.

Now, I am more than aware that this setup is most clearly unprofessional. But my point, or rather my question is: does this factor not apply to recordings in general, including professional ones? I have the strong impression that an Apogee preamp is by far less noisy than a 38 EUR ART MP tube preamp... Also that a SE electronics 2200 is less noisy -- I mean regardless of ambient noise --- than the entry level Samson LDC.

I am probably stating the obvious, and I don't want to be tedious. But is it not important to focus on gear that generates as little electronic noise as possible, given the fact that the issue noise is likely to appear further down (or up, depending on the perspective) the signal chain on the recording venue?

--------------------
Patrick
http://soundcloud.com/pnl-2/drizzle

Quote Pat Nghia Long:

---

Still, the lavalier mics used for interviews or for the newsreader on TV are seldom seen as an X-Y pair over the conductor...

---

true... but mostly because the vast majority are omnidirectional and wouldn't work as an XY pair! Added to which, as sub-miniature mics they are often significantly noisier than SDCs and are specifically designed for near-field mic placement.

Quote:

---

...or to pick up the second violins...

---

Actually, you'd be surprised how often they are used in that role in live sound applications for outdoor concerts, or where string ections or orcehstras are supporting rock music etc.

Quote:

---

I do have the impression some transducers are actually noisy, and so can some preamps be... Or is it just me?

---

Indeed, some are, either by poor design or because of faults. Capacitor mics are particualrly prone to becoming noisy if the diaphragm is contaminated, for example. Nevertheless, the point remains that the purchasing decision for a microphone is rarely heavily influenced by the self-noise figure. Low self-noise is often counted as a bonus rather than as a deciding factor, as I explained previously.

Quote:

---

So it would appear that most of the noise is not from my laptop, nor from the room ambience in general, but from the device acting as preamp.

---

Yep... I refer to the point I made above... The signal-noise specification for the mixer section of that product is quoted as 68dB (with the IHF-A measurement characteristic). Any half-decent professional mic preamplifier would be quoting a figure of around 110dB or so. In other words, a good 40dB quieter!

Quote:

---

But is it not important to focus on gear that generates as little electronic noise as possible, given the fact that the issue noise is likely to appear further down (or up, depending on the perspective) the signal chain on the recording venue?

---

Yes, it is obviously an improtant consideration, and that's why self-noise and equivalent input noise figures are specified in microphone and preamp spec-sheets, respectively. However, as I explained previously, with modern mics and decent preamps, microphone self-noise is only an issue in extreme circumstances, and generally the ambient room noise is the dominant factor.

With your equipment, it appears that preamp noise is the dominant factor, but then I imagine the MT50 is (a) not designed for making low noise recordings with low output mics placed at a distance fromthe source, and (b) is probably quite acceptable when used with close-mic techniques and loud sources...

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound