Equipment Advice

[Flute-Picc]

I am a classical performer living in an area with little to offer in terms of classical recording. Being interested in recording myself (and frustrated with the results I get from the one "classical guy" in town), I have spent the past couple months trying to educate myself about the gear that is available/within my budget. I have a few questions to make final decisions on some of the equipment and would also like some input on the overall selection before spending this type of money.

I will be making solely classical recordings with this equipment. They should consist primarily of solo instrument and solo instrument + piano (mainly flute, although I will probably do some trumpet and violin recordings too). My goal is to create decent quality archival recordings (professional enough to present on my website) as well as recordings for competitions/auditions/etc. for myself and for my students...essentially anything but a true "commercial" release. My budget is not set in stone (dangerous, I know), but I do not really want to go any more expensive than the gear listed. I would like to start with just a pair of microphones, with the idea of possibly expanding to four mics somewhere down the road. My goal is to spend no more than I have to to get the results I need.

So, after much reading of forum posts, reviews, listening to comparisons, etc., the things I feel fairly sure about are as follows. From what I have read/heard, these seem worth the money to me (and I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong ).
mics: Audio Technica AT4080 (x2)
preamp: DAV BG1

Now for the part I still feel a bit lost on. I will be recording in a hall on a "portable" recorder (stationary throughout recording) and then transferring it to my computer at home. I have read that a lot of people seem to like the Tascam DR-680. I don't mind that it has more channels than I need, since it can grow if I ever decide to pick up more mics. It also has mic preamps, though, and probably some other stuff I would never use. Is there a better/cheaper option for me than this unit that is still reliable with a nice sound quality?

Now the real problem: software. Here I feel the most lost. I do not need all the bells and whistles that most of these programs come with. I will never use the midi or the canned beat mixes or any of that stuff. I need the ability to do minimal editing (splicing, etc) with slight tempo adjustments to the spliced material when different takes do not exactly align. I have read on here that Propellerhead Record does this quite well. Is there a simpler/better/cheaper option available? I am on a PC.

Lastly, besides mic stands and cables, is there anything I am forgetting in this setup? Thanks so much for your time and your (hopeful) kindness.

[joelpatterson]

I am sure my betters will offer all kinds of specific pathways to get what you're after... but I have to say: the distinction between what's a "commercial" recording and what's "okay for your website," there's not really a difference between the two, in the waning days of 2010.

"Excellently produced, clear and engaging and revealing the subtlest nuances of the player's intentions," that's the standard today. Anyone at all can achieve it, given the proper headwinds of ambition and determination.

It will take some practice to get it right-- but, essentially, any machine that offers 24 bit audio, any program that contains compression and EQ tools, any CD burner that works... okay, let the games begin.

[DCtoDaylight]

The Tascam unit seems like a good choice for this sort of thing. There's a lot to be said for a self-contained unit like that, and while I haven't used that particular box, Tascam stuff is generally quite solid. And you wouldn't need extrenal preamps if you went this route.

As far as the mics - the 4080 has a figure-8 pickup pattern, so you'll have to be very aware of what's behind the mic as well as in front of it. You don't say where you'll be doing your recording; if you're going to be recording live events at a range of different spaces, you'd probably find that a good pair of small-diameter cardioid condensers is a more versatile option. If you'll be working in studio-type spaces, where you have a lot of control over where the performers and mics are placed, the ribbons might be OK. They do require a lot of preamp gain, however, which might put you back into external pre territory.

In addition to cables and stands, you'll need a good pair of closed headphones, gaffer's tape, and a case of some sort for transport (a rolling suitcase sort of thing works well). You'll probably also want a stereo bar for setting up pairs of mics, and a cable tester is pretty nice to have as well.

Good luck!

[jnorman]

my wife runs a flute studio, so i do lots of solo flute and flute/piano recording. over the years, i have owned a variety of mics from all budget levels trying to find a good fit for the particular demands of flute. i have had pairs of royer r-121s and coles 4038s and shinybox 46 and cascade fatheads (all ribbons), and generally feel like ribbons are just not quite right - i always prefer the cleaner top end of condenser mics. plus ribbon mics (and all dynamic mics) really require a very clean, high gain preamp to be driven properly, and that item alone can bust your budget.

good mics in the lowest acceptable price range would include the AT4021s (cardioids) or AT4022 (omnis), or perhaps akg c391b's which also have a nice omni capsule available. for medium priced mics, i would suggest a pair of AT4051s or AT4049s, or the beyer mc930s or mc910s, or a good used pair of AKG C460 bodies with ck61 and/or ck62 caps. also worth considering are the DPA miniature omni mics such as the 4061s.

further up the price range are the neumann km184s, akg c480b's, gefell m300s, and up higher are the neumann km140s, the DPA 4011 and 4006, the schoeps cmc6/mk2 or mk4, sennheiser mkh 8040 and 8020. my current mics are ORTF pair of KM140s, flanked by a pair of DPA omnis. i do not close mic anything - i am generally around 8-10 feet out from a solo flute or from a flute-piano duo, even in the studio.

for location work, i am using a lexicon U42s interface, which is a USB2 unit with solid stable drivers, 4 dbx preamps of quite useable quality, and an IBM thinkpad laptop running Reaper. Reaper is excellent DAW and ridiculously affordable - in fact you can use it free if you are not doing commercial work - and it comes with tons of included plugins including a convolution reverb and noise reduction, which are both almost indispensible.

feel free to PM me if you want to ask some more sepcific questions.

[Flute-Picc]

Thanks a bunch for the advice so far.

To clarify: I would be recording primarily in a hall that has a nice clear acoustic as well as occasionally in a couple of old, large churches that are very wet. Anything recorded live would be purely for archival purposes/my own listening, and anything recorded for anyone else to hear would be recorded in a setting where I would have control over noise, microphone placement, performer placement, etc.

Also, I am on a desktop PC running Windows 7 64-bit. Getting a laptop is not in the budget at all (nor do I have much use for one otherwise), which is why I was looking at something like the Tascam unit. Am I correct in assuming that I can record to an SDHC card with that type of unit and transfer it to my desktop for editing without any problems (I have a card reader)?

Lastly, does anyone else who records flute have thoughts about ribbons vs. condensers? I was after the ribbons because I love their sound in classical music, and preferred the flute sound the one time I was recorded on one to the many times I have been recorded on a condenser. The condenser, to my ears, is a much flatter, skinnier, less rich sound that also tends to pick up more of the flute's noise (vibrato wiffle type stuff). The post by jnorman, who does this quite often, has me concerned about my choice, though, and I would love to hear any other thoughts pro or con.

[Brackish]

Originally Posted by jnorman

my current mics are ORTF pair of KM140s, flanked by a pair of DPA omnis. i do not close mic anything - i am generally around 8-10 feet out from a solo flute or from a flute-piano duo

At what position and at what distance do you set up the flanks?

[Brackish]

Originally Posted by Flute-Picc

does anyone else who records flute have thoughts about ribbons vs. condensers?

I'd be curious to know, if a person was going to try a ribbon on flute,
which ribbons have been shown better than others for this application?
And which to avoid?

[Flute-Picc]

Originally Posted by Brackish

I'd be curious to know, if a person was going to try a ribbon on flute,
which ribbons have been shown better than others for this application?
And which to avoid?

I was attracted to the AT4080 as well as a Coles model I couldn't afford, based on the listening I've been able to do over the past several months. I also thought the Blue Woodpecker was interesting, but I have read enough nasty things about it that I dropped it from consideration. I particularly did not like Royers with flute, for whatever that is worth. I have no idea what I was recorded with the one time someone used a ribbon with me. The problem with this is that I'm basing this on other people's setups and sound clips, since I don't have the gear to try for myself. Furthermore, since I have no idea what I've been recorded with over the years, it's entirely possible that my aversion to condensers could be due to the mics or other gear used with them.

[DCtoDaylight]

This being Gearslutz, I'd like to suggest that you buy three mics instead of two: a pair of small-diameter condenser cardioids and a single ribbon mic.

For live recording, the condensers will be an ideal stereo pair, with the ribbon serving as an optional spot mic for the soloist. In the studio, you'd have many different options for different situations and setups.

At your stage of the recording game, you're going to need a lot of practice before you can really take advantage of the distinctive sound of the ribbon mic. You should definitely grab one, but the condensers will be more versatile and more forgiving, especially for live situations. A used pair selected from jnorman's excellent list would be a great option.

Good for you for diving into this; you sound like a good candidate for recording, and I hope you enjoy the learning process!

[hbphotoav]

I can strongly recommend Mick Hinton's DAV mic amps... and dealing with him (yes... he actually answered the phone when I called, and was prompt with emails) was an absolute treat.

I use a BG8 when my Apogee Ensemble's four channels aren't enough, or when I run through one of my Onyx consoles for PA duties as well as tracking. Good choice, that. You can spend a lot more money for not much more (or better... just different) performance.

As to the mics thing... I'd be real tempted to spend the $1,700 you have budgeted for the AT 8040 pair for a pair of DPA 4061s AND a pair of Cascade Fat Head II ribbons. Seems like that would get you very similar performance on the ribbon end of things, and an extremely useful pair of miniature omni condensers.

I recorded a choir (250+) and orchestra at Bern about three years ago with a pair of Fat Heads in Blumlein and (on the same stand) a pair of the 4061s in a 1m AB. I was very pleased with the Cascade array's imaging... much more precise soundstage than the omnis... but (with the agreement of my client) went with the DPA for clarity in the choir. It was, after all, a choral music festival... and the FR dip north of 5K from the Fat Heads lost enough sibilant to matter. The Fat Head IIs have more extension in those last two octaves... even more with the Lundahl transformer, as I understand the literature (no personal experience beyond my original Fat Heads).

Both sounded very nice... the 4061s just got the nod that time out. Some day I may play around with a blend since they were on the same stand. You can hear a couple of mp3s at: Using a Blumlein Array in Live Recording? Post #8.

[chris319]

In addition to the mics mentioned by jnorman, there is the Shure KSM141 which I haven't used but which has received favorable reviews here. One of the members here, plush, worked with Shure on its development. It can be either omni or cardioid; take your pick.

[sonare]

I have recorded many flutists in many situations-- and personally I would not reach for a ribbon first (and I have a very flat one-- the SF12). You really want the shimmer without shrillness, and ribbons generally lack the transient response to give you shimmer. OTOH cheap condensers (and not so cheap such as the KM184) will not give you much sense of body to the sound compared to Schoeps CMC62.

I would also consider the other instrument you mentioned-- the room. If neutral choose a neutral mic. The DPA4090 would be a good choice. I would avoid the 4060/61 because of the 12kHz bump unless you remove the grill-- which is what the 4090 is with built-in XLR.

I own 12 channels of BG but can honestly say that for you the DR680 pres make alot of sense. You can also add more mic possibilities later with its built-in mixer. With the 4090s and KSM140s I can't think of anything you couldn't record. Remember-- mics make 95% of the sound.

Rich

[Flute-Picc]

To update, I purchased the two channels of DAV (and the shipping time was ridiculously fast). You all have given me lots to consider with different mics. In particular, jnorman was kind enough to send me a ton of links to sound samples which helped me narrow things down a bit. Out of the many, many samples I listened to, I actually preferred the Crowley and Tripp ribbons used by Marco Granados (what a small world to run into him here!) to anything else...which does nothing to help me get away from wanting ribbons. Sigh.

I am, however, rather intrigued by the DPA4090s recommended by Sonare. I love many of the clips I have heard with it. To me, it has a warmth and an openness that I find ideal for the sound I am going for. I have not, however, heard any clips of the flute recorded with it. Also, I have read some frightening things from some years back about the noise levels of it. Now that it is not a new mic and the dust has settled, does anyone have strong feelings one way or the other regarding this issue?

To summarize:
mics: DPA 4090s? AT 4080s?
preamp: DAV BG1
recorder: tascam DR-680 (I'm still open to any other suggestions here as I know this gives me redundant pres)

I feel like someone is sitting above me on my head, as I try to figure all of this out!

[sonare]

You are searching for the single answer-- there is no single answer. The transient response of ribbons (not to mention the 15db more micpre noise because it puts out much less signal compared to any condenser) removes it from consideration FOR ME. You may prefer the darker and often colored world of ribbons with flute, but FOR ME any ribbon (and the one I use is as neutral as it gets) with ribbon coloration, lack of shimmer, and inevitable noise removes it from consideration. YMMV.

The internet chat about the 4061/91 noise is moot when comparing to a ribbon and the additional gain (and noise) that is needed for a low output passive transducer. For me the sound of the mic and how it captures the instrument AND ROOM trumps everything. The neutrality of the DPA sound is ideal for the flute if you are in a reasonable room.

Would I choose a 4060/61/90/91 for solo lute? Probably not. But you produce level transients MUCH louder. Don't forget that slight hiss simply isn't noticed when everything is great. The HVAC noise can easily be the dominant noise, and to get rid of that means you destroy the very thing with flute you spent all the money to capture-- the shimmering transients that make a flutist sound better than mediocre. Ironic that the noise of a M49, M50, or ELAM 251 is part of its character but that's ok when using a microphone icon.

Don't forget that the sound is the thing-- everything else is a distraction.

Rich

[Corran]

As a flute player and recording engineer, I've always been after the best flute recording mics. What I use now is usually the Schoeps MK2 omnis in A-B. Also excellent have been Earthworks QTC-40, though they can be noisy if the music is generally soft (such as flute alone works).

I also recently recorded a recital I played with a pair of Neumann U89's. I haven't really listened to much of it yet but so far it sounds very good.

I would personally just buy a pair of high-quality omnis, and ones with no high-frequency lift.

If you are still looking for software I would highly suggest Reaper.

[sonare]

I agree with Bryan's Schoeps Mk2 suggestion; however the price ($1600 ea) may be a problem. The DPA (with a street price of $620 ea) will not be as quiet but the laws of physics (large diaphragm=less noise; small diaphragm=more noise) refuse to be broken. The Schoeps falls in-between the two.

Rich

[RobAnderson]

I guess I'll swim against the stream here.

For me, a pair of high-quality small-capsule cardioids are the most flexible since they open up more possibilities with stereophonic techniques and ambience control. I would recommend either the KM184's, 140's, CMC64's or 4011's if I were only able to have a single pair of mic's to start with.

ORTF, XY, AB, not to mention use as spot mic's - cardioids are more generally flexible than any of the other patterns. You can always back the mic's up for more ambience. Omni's generally yield the best sound quality, but they can be limited in their usefulness when circumstances are less than ideal.

[chris319]

The AT4080 has 22 dB of self noise and -39 dBV of sensitivity (and an internal preamp).

The DPA4090 has 23 dB of self noise and -34 dBV of sensitivity.

The QTC40 has 22 dB of self noise and -30.5 dBV of sensitivity.

The KSM141 has 14 dB of self noise and -37 dBV of sensitivity.

Based on these specs, the QTC40 would be 8.5 dB quieter than the AT4080. The DPA4090 would be 4 dB quieter than the AT4080. The dual-pattern KSM141 would be 10 dB quieter than the AT4080.

These figures are arrived at by examining both the mics' self noise and sensitivity. The higher a mic's sensitivity the less you will have to crank up the preamp, thus the less noise the preamp will add.

Of course noise is not the only consideration in choosing a mic.

[sonare]

Originally Posted by chris319

Of course noise is not the only consideration in choosing a mic.

Especially considering that THERE IS NO INDUSTRY STANDARD for measuring mic noise-- this factoid from DPA America.

Rich

[chris319]

Originally Posted by sonare

Especially considering that THERE IS NO INDUSTRY STANDARD for measuring mic noise-- this factoid from DPA America.

I don't know where you get your factoid, but DPA has this to say about it (emphasis mine):

Equivalent noise level /self noise
The equivalent noise level indicates the sound pressure level that will create the same voltage that the self-noise from the microphone will produce. A low noise level is especially desirable when working with low sound pressure levels so the sound will not drown in noise from the microphone itself. The self-noise also dictates the lower limitation in the microphone's dynamic range.

There are two typical standards:

1. The dB(A) scale will weight the SPL according to the ear's sensitivity, especially filtering out low frequency noise. Good results (very low noise) in this scale are usually below 15 dB(A).
2. The ITU-R BS.468-4 scale uses a different weighting, so in this scale, good results are below 25 dB.

Sensitivity, sound pressure level (SPL) handling & total harmonic distortion (THD)
Sensitivity tells you how well the microphone can convert the acoustic sound into electricity and according to the IEC 60268-4 norm, the sensitivity is measured in mV per Pascal (air pressure) at 1 kHz. The higher the sensitivity the better, because it reduces the need for amplification and therefore reduces the amplification noise.

DPA Microphones :: Microphone University - The Essentials

[hbphotoav]

Unless I'm gravely mistaken, I think what Rich was saying was that there is no CONSISTENT standard between manufacturers by which noise specs are quoted... that is, the noise spec published by Shure or AudioTechnica or Line Audio is likely based on different criteria than each other, or than DPA. If all the specs quoted are quoted with the same parameters (which parameters, few companies except DPA state)... then you have basis for the paper comparison. That is... a 406x is noisier than a 4006... but is it likewise noisier than a AT4051? No way to know without measuring them with exactly the same parameters...

Since DPA (formerly B&K or Bruel & Kjaer, who specialized in industrial measurement mics) measures noise specs very conservatively, they may "look" noisier than other brands (for whom noise specs are sometimes more marketing than reality) but, in use are quieter.

And, my use of the (somewhat) maligned 4061 series as main pair has proven to me only that the noise floor of the venues up in which I've put them, and the mic amps in the FirePod with which I began my walk in digital acquisition, were both noticeably noisier than the mics themselves... especially when they're put through my Apogee or Broadhurst Gardens mic amps in the same venues, with similar program material. Perhaps in a pin-drop quiet, double-walled, floated-floored studio they might be a problem. But at FBC Nashville or Coventry Cathedral or the Casino Konzerthaus... not so much.

Also note... I do location acquisition only. Perhaps what noise is present would matter a great deal more to me were I to track 16 or 24 tracks and stack them all in a mix. But I don't.

FWIW.

HB

[chris319]

I think what Rich was saying was that there is no CONSISTENT standard between manufacturers by which noise specs are quoted... that is, the noise spec published by Shure or AudioTechnica or Line Audio is likely based on different criteria than each other, or than DPA.

I'd like to see this statement from DPA claiming that manufacturers X, Y and Z use different standards or that there is no standard at all (there are standards which I cited in a previous post -- IEC 60268-4 is a whole suite of standards for mic metrology).

which parameters, few companies except DPA state

Nonsense. Shure, Audio Technica, Earthworks, Rode, Schoeps and Neumann all do. Read the fine print in some mic spec sheets. They tell you whether the self-noise figure is A-weighted or not, and that the parameters for the sensitivity spec are at 1 kHz and 1 Pa, viz.:

Sensitivity (typical, at 1000 Hz; 1 Pa = 94 dB SPL)

Self noise (typical, equivalent SPL; A-weighted, IEC 651)

Since DPA (formerly B&K or Bruel & Kjaer, who specialized in industrial measurement mics) measures noise specs very conservatively, they may "look" noisier than other brands (for whom noise specs are sometimes more marketing than reality) but, in use are quieter.

Quieter than what? Do you have one shred of proof to substantiate your claim about the way B&K specs their mics compared to other brands? If so, let's see it.

[Brackish]

Originally Posted by sonare

Don't forget that slight hiss simply isn't noticed when everything is great. ... Ironic that the noise of a M49, M50, or ELAM 251 is part of its character but that's ok when using a microphone icon.

Be interesting to know how the tape hiss from the great recordings
of years past compares to the hiss level from these small DPAs.
May put the DPA hiss in perspective.

And I wonder what the self-noise figures are on the M49 and M50.
DPA 4060/4090 is 23dB, I think.

[sonare]

Originally Posted by chris319

I'd like to see this statement from DPA claiming that manufacturers X, Y and Z use different standards or that there is no standard at all (there are standards which I cited in a previous post -- IEC 60268-4 is a whole suite of standards for mic metrology).

Nonsense. Shure, Audio Technica, Earthworks, Rode, Schoeps and Neumann all do. Read the fine print in some mic spec sheets. They tell you whether the self-noise figure is A-weighted or not, and that the parameters for the sensitivity spec are at 1 kHz and 1 Pa, viz.:

Quieter than what? Do you have one shred of proof to substantiate your claim about the way B&K specs their mics compared to other brands? If so, let's see it.

Talk to Bruce Myers at DPA. Have you used 40XX mics? This is internet "information" at its most egregious.

[David Spearritt]

Originally Posted by chris319

These figures are arrived at by examining both the mics' self noise and sensitivity. The higher a mic's sensitivity the less you will have to crank up the preamp, thus the less noise the preamp will add.

The self noise quoted for a microphone is independent of the mic sensitivity, that's why it's unit is sound pressure level. Generally, even with normal low noise condensers, the mic noise still dominates compared to a high quality mic preamp.

[meltemi]

Originally Posted by RobAnderson

I guess I'll swim against the stream here.

For me, a pair of high-quality small-capsule cardioids are the most flexible since they open up more possibilities with stereophonic techniques and ambience control. I would recommend ..... if I were only able to have a single pair of mic's to start with.

ORTF, XY, AB, not to mention use as spot mic's - cardioids are more generally flexible than any of the other patterns. You can always back the mic's up for more ambience. Omni's generally yield the best sound quality, but they can be limited in their usefulness when circumstances are less than ideal.

There may be a way out for a single mic pair: Schoeps Mk5. They are mechanically switchable between omni (giving you an Mk2) and cardioid (giving you an Mk4).

[meltemi]

Regarding self noise specs:

There are different measurement methods (standards) for self noise, which give different dB values.
(See chris319 correct quotation of DPA above.)

Comparing just the dB values without naming the measurement method is completely meaningless. It's like comparing apples to oranges.

A direct comparison of dB values only makes sense, if exactly the same measurement method has been used.

After all, dB is a relative value referring to some reference point (e.g. dBFS referring to digital full scale, dBV referring to 1V, dBu referring to 775mV, dBSPL referring to the hearing threshold i.e. 20µPa @ 1kHz, etc.). In addition, some filtering may have been applied for the measurement (e.g. bandwidth limitation 20-20kHz, standardized filter curve IEC-A, standardized filter curve IEC-C, etc.).

[chris319]

All of the manufacturers whose specs I cited use A-weighting.

[hbphotoav]

All of the manufacturers whose mics I use provide gear that allows me to make very nice recordings. I'll defer to the scientists amongst us to decide whose is the smallest.

Noise. Smallest noise.

I guess I was trying to get to the apples/oranges specs wars thing...

I'm gonna go record something now.

HB

[David Spearritt]

Originally Posted by meltemi

Comparing just the dB values without naming the measurement method is completely meaningless. It's like comparing apples to oranges.

Most mic manufs quote two standards, IEC 268-1 and DIN 45 405, where the measurement method is defined.

Originally Posted by meltemi

After all, dB is a relative value referring to some reference point (e.g. dBFS referring to digital full scale, dBV referring to 1V, dBu referring to 775mV, dBSPL referring to the hearing threshold i.e. 20µPa @ 1kHz, etc.). In addition, some filtering may have been applied for the measurement (e.g. bandwidth limitation 20-20kHz, standardized filter curve IEC-A, standardized filter curve IEC-C, etc.).

But this is dB SPL linear and A-weighted, so there is no ambiguity, its relative to 20uPa.