The mighty D.A.V. BG Preamp & Burl ADC

[MichaelPatrick]

Originally Posted by bcgood

Actually I just listened on my good ole HD 280s and now I don't really hear what I was hearing on my tiny ear buds. Go figure!

For better or for worse?

[bcgood]

Originally Posted by MichaelPatrick

For better or for worse?

For better, meaning it sounds better. For some reason on the small earbuds the stereo image especially on the right side sounded a little strange. Good stuff man, I wish I came out there to video tape and record with you. I would love to see/hear a performance in that place! Cheers man

bcg

[aracu]

Good job of calculating a well balanced sound with few mics. The comments on the bass could also be related to the signature sound of the Sennh.800, which tends to exaggerate the separation of bass and treble.

[MichaelPatrick]

Originally Posted by aracu

Good job of calculating a well balanced sound with few mics. The comments on the bass could also be related to the signature sound of the Sennh.800, which tends to exaggerate the separation of bass and treble.

That's good to know.

I've had them about a year and I'm learning to use them as mains. Do you know of any "standard" corrections experienced users might employ? -- i.e. is there a dip somewhere in the mids or a bump in the lows?

[David Spearritt]

Originally Posted by MichaelPatrick

In addition to the preamp's politeness, transformers in the Burl ADC contribute a gentle distinctive punch to each section in the choir and orchestra which gives the overall sound a playful and interesting three-dimensional dynamism.

Really?

[panatrope]

Originally Posted by MichaelPatrick

In addition to the preamp's politeness, transformers in the Burl ADC contribute a gentle distinctive punch to each section in the choir and orchestra which gives the overall sound a playful and interesting three-dimensional dynamism.

Why does this immediately remind me of James Thurber: "It's a naive domestic Burgundy without any breeding, but I think you'll be amused by its presumption." I am all for good use of language to try and link subjective and objective evaluation of sound. But I think we are in danger of falling into the world of the wine-writer, especially when we indulge in a form of technological anthropomorphism, to assign characteristics such as "politeness" to a piece of gear.

In the case of an ADC with a transformer input, perceived to be delivering a certain character to the sound, we are back in the world of accuracy vs aural interest. Maybe we should dig out those Aphex Aural Exciters of 30 years back, and run our recordings through those to see if it still delivers some of those sonic qualities that seem to be valued in newer gear today.

Right you are, if you say so!

[MichaelPatrick]

Yes, flowery subjective words, I know. If this were merely a science I'd use tighter words. But, alas, my work is best when complimenting musical art.

Here are some words from engineers writing for Tape Op. They, too, are subjective while describing facts, refined yet grounded in pithy earth and, while lacking that air-high nose reminiscent of audiophiles and sommeliers, their prose weaves a melodiously poetic and persuasive tale of intoxicating digital conversions -- the experience of ones and zeroes is almost spiritual when these peculiar pieces are decanted: Allen Farmelo | blog

Originally Posted by panatrope

Why does this immediately remind me of James Thurber: "It's a naive domestic Burgundy without any breeding, but I think you'll be amused by its presumption." I am all for good use of language to try and link subjective and objective evaluation of sound. But I think we are in danger of falling into the world of the wine-writer, especially when we indulge in a form of technological anthropomorphism, to assign characteristics such as "politeness" to a piece of gear.

In the case of an ADC with a transformer input, perceived to be delivering a certain character to the sound, we are back in the world of accuracy vs aural interest. Maybe we should dig out those Aphex Exciters of 30 years back, and run our recordings through those to see if it still delivers some of those sonic qualities that seem to be valued in newer gear today.

Right you are, if you say so!

[boojum]

As an old "audiophile" I am all too familiar with the overblown hyperbole of the audio field. Nevertheless, how do we describe those things which we cannot yet measure with numbers and graphs? By the best, and sometimes poetic, analogies which motivate us. It is a minefield. I get carried away by a superb piece of technology sometimes. And we all use "air" and have a pretty similar idea of what we all mean by it. We are limited by our knowledge and language. But we must try and describe what it is that is in our heads. Much like the Houyhnhnms who had no word for "lie" and who had to resort to "that thing which is not true."

[aracu]

Originally Posted by MichaelPatrick

That's good to know.

I've had them about a year and I'm learning to use them as mains. Do you know of any "standard" corrections experienced users might employ? -- i.e. is there a dip somewhere in the mids or a bump in the lows?

Thet have sounded better to me untampered, without eq, but I need to experiment more. I'll use it with an sf24 to fill out the midrange. For ms another nice combo is 800 mid fig 8 with Schoeps mk8 side or vice versa. With 2 Sennheiser 800 mics it's almost unlimited how many different arrays are possible. A nice one is having them set to wide cardioids, 90 degree angle,
around 12 inches apart. But you have inpired me with your mid side configuration. What did you have the mid set to?

[MichaelPatrick]

Originally Posted by aracu

What did you have the mid set to?

I recorded this concert on two dates one weekend. The first attempt was a wide cardioid Mid which yielded, well, too much middle. The side info was way out in the periphery and the center image was too large and undefined.

The second performance I went instead with a straight cardioid Mid and it sounded much better. That's what you hear in these clips.

Not to change the subject, but are you happy with the SF-24 image in M/S? I have some matched SF-1s, a stereo AEA R88 and a stereo Cascade X-15, but I've never done M/S with any them.

P.S. Yesterday I ordered a Schoeps MK8 to use with MK21 and MK4 Mid capsules. Now you've given me the idea to try it out with an MKH800 Mid. This week a colleague is trying out a Shure KSM44/KSM141 combo in M/S. There are so many ways to mic M/S !

[panatrope]

Originally Posted by MichaelPatrick

P.S. Yesterday I ordered a Schoeps MK8 to use with MK21 and MK4 Mid capsules.

As a user of the MK4/MK8 config for several years, spare no expense and get the Schoeps AMS22 suspension to match - makes a neat installation and gives the closest possible spacing between the capsules for best M-S coherence at high frequencies. Further tip - get a 5/8" to 3/8" thread adaptor and leave it permanently in the (plastic-threaded) mount, then carry with it a 3/8" to 5/8" adaptor when required. Honestly, for such an expensive bit of kit, why don't Schoeps (and AKG for that matter) provide a metal thread insert? Rode suspension mounts currently set the standard in this regard.

I recently acquired a single MK21 and have used it in M-S with the MK8 with mixed results. It is much happier as a piano spotter - and I'll have to wait till I can afford a companion (in true GS spirit) to try the spaced MK21s that reportedly work so well in some situations.

[MichaelPatrick]

Originally Posted by panatrope

As a user of this config for several years, spare no expense and get the Schoeps AMS22 suspension to match - makes a neat installation and gives the closest possible spacing between the capsules for best M-S coherence at high frequencies. Further tip - get a 5/8" to 3/8" thread adaptor and leave it permanently in the (plastic-threaded) mount, then carry with it a 3/8" to 5/8" adaptor when required. Honestly, for such an expensive bit of kit, why they don't provide a metal thread insert. Rode suspensions set the standard.

I recently acquired a single MK21 and have used it in M-S with the MK8 with mixed results. It is much happier as a piano spotter - and I'll have to wait till I can afford a companion (in true GS spirit) to try the spaced MK21s that reportedly work so well in some situations.

What do you use, then, MK4 for mid mic in the AMS22?

BTW, I also ordered an AMS22 because I thought, like you, it must be important to have a stable, repeatable mount. Spacing and alignment are critical for consistently good results, especially for M/S, and the last thing I want to do is second-guess Schoeps' own know-how!

[boojum]

MP - I use a KMSC + a KC5 cable to mount just the Mk4 cap over the CMC68. I agree that closer is better. Better phase coherence means better stereo imaging. I have liked the Mk4 + Mk8 rig. I think the KMSC is the cheapest thing in the Schoeps catalog. $18 for a tiny bit of plastic. Yikes, those folks have no conscience.


http://www.schoeps.de/en/products/kmsc/application

[aracu]

Originally Posted by MichaelPatrick

I recorded this concert on two dates one weekend. The first attempt was a wide cardioid Mid which yielded, well, too much middle. The side info was way out in the periphery and the center image was too large and undefined.

The second performance I went instead with a straight cardioid Mid and it sounded much better. That's what you hear in these clips.

Not to change the subject, but are you happy with the SF-24 image in M/S? I have some matched SF-1s, a stereo AEA R88 and a stereo Cascade X-15, but I've never done M/S with any them.

P.S. Yesterday I ordered a Schoeps MK8 to use with MK21 and MK4 Mid capsules. Now you've given me the idea to try it out with an MKH800 Mid. This week a colleague is trying out a Shure KSM44/KSM141 combo in M/S. There are so many ways to mic M/S !

Interesting... the cardioid pattern definately has a special quality on that mic.

I almost always use the sf24 as a mid side mic (in general I like very much the sound of mid side with a figure 8 as mid). The sf24 is a favorite mic
of mine, although not so much of my clients, who will sometimes complain if the sound is not bright enough. However, the sf24 is very mallable with eq, and is excellent for blending with brighter mics. I like the stereo image of it very much, especially for a very wide, fantasy image, which can make a harsh acoustic space sound good.

Michael, I'm curious to hear your impression of the Sennheiser 800 as omni
compared with the Josephson 617.

[panatrope]

Originally Posted by MichaelPatrick

What do you use, then, MK4 for mid mic in the AMS22?

Up until recently, always the MK4 as mid. In what was our main concert hall (now closed for renovations), even at 4 or 5 metres, it gave a very close-up sound on things like string quartets. The purpose of having the MK21 as the M-mic was to allow a little closer working in our new hall, to pickup a little more of the ambience, and also have a slight improvement in bottom end compared to the MK4. However, on a recent gig with a string quartet (different environment), I found that an initial closer spacing 'separated' the quartet a bit too much, and moving back narrowed the image making sound much more 'together' but bringing in a bit more of the ambience than I liked. But as I said, I have had only two or three gigs with this combo and am still learning.

[MichaelPatrick]

Originally Posted by aracu

Interesting... the cardioid pattern definately has a special quality on that mic.

I almost always use the sf24 as a mid side mic (in general I like very much the sound of mid side with a figure 8 as mid). The sf24 is a favorite mic
of mine, although not so much of my clients, who will sometimes complain if the sound is not bright enough. However, the sf24 is very mallable with eq, and is excellent for blending with brighter mics. I like the stereo image of it very much, especially for a very wide, fantasy image, which can make a harsh acoustic space sound good.

Michael, I'm curious to hear your impression of the Sennheiser 800 as omni
compared with the Josephson 617.

Thanks, that gives me some confidence to try crossed ribbons out in M/S. Also the 800 Mid in fig-8.

I haven't used the Senn 800s yet as main omnis, mostly because I'm so happy with the Josephsons and the Schneider disc, which I like for mains. But the disc needs a true pressure mic. When I find an occasion to use the 800s in AB I'll report back.

[MichaelPatrick]

Originally Posted by panatrope

Up until recently, always the MK4 as mid. In what was our main concert hall (now closed for renovations), even at 4 or 5 metres, it gave a very close-up sound on things like string quartets. The purpose of having the MK21 as the M-mic was to allow a little closer working in our new hall, to pickup a little more of the ambience, and also have a slight improvement in bottom end compared to the MK4. However, on a recent gig with a string quartet (different environment), I found that an initial closer spacing 'separated' the quartet a bit too much, and moving back narrowed the image making sound much more 'together' but bringing in a bit more of the ambience than I liked. But as I said, I have had only two or three gigs with this combo and am still learning.

That's helpful information - Thanks! I think I'll start with the MK4 and see how it goes.

[panatrope]

Originally Posted by MichaelPatrick

BTW, I also ordered an AMS22 because I thought, like you, it must be important to have a stable, repeatable mount. Spacing and alignment are critical for consistently good results, especially for M/S, and the last thing I want to do is second-guess Schoeps' own know-how!

Also, re the MK21orMK4/MK8 in the AMS22, when the connector ends of the preamp bodies are aligned, the capsule diaphragms are also directly aligned one above the other. And the neat cable clamp is quite useful ...

[Tom McC]

MS afficionados, is nobody using a perpendicular arrangement, with horizontal Mk4 M and vertical Mk8 S?.

I have several home-made M/S holders,from wood to machined aluminium blocks, but this perpendicular set up - start from L-bending a cheap stereo bar - is the one I seem to use most of the time. And visually unobtrusive...without an elastic suspension :-)

[MichaelPatrick]

Originally Posted by Tom McC

MS afficionados, is nobody using a perpendicular arrangement, with horizontal Mk4 M and vertical Mk8 S?.

I have several home-made M/S holders,from wood to machined aluminium blocks, but this perpendicular set up - start from L-bending a cheap stereo bar - is the one I seem to use most of the time. And visually unobtrusive...without an elastic suspension :-)

Do you have a photo?

[Tom McC]

Originally Posted by MichaelPatrick

Do you have a photo?

Alas no photo's, Michael, and I'll spare you my drawing- or ascii art :-) .

Simple to envisage, though: old solid stereo bar cannibalized into an L-shaped bracket, each segment ca. 12 cm. The mic stand gets the near-centre threaded hole, while standard swivel mic clamps (e.g. K&M, Sennheiser) fit on the threaded knobs near each extremity. Stand-mounted thus and, say, at level height with a performing source, the horizontally-aligned M mic sits clear above the rear vertical L-segment to which it's attached. The S mic is attached to the horizontal L-segment and aligned body pointing vertically, with cable at bottom end, so it finishes a bit forward and clear of the horizontal L-segment. Cable dressng and precise geometry adjustment was easy, also for other mic bodies. The weight balance worked out OK too when the mics had to be flown. My "unobtrusive" comment was tongue in cheek, though - pertaining only when viewed from direct rear or front..

But my post was not intended to tout this array, but rather to canvas for people's experiences or opinions on the principle of a perpendicular-oriented S mic - e.g. set up ease?, less interference / reflection issues, subtle tonal changes etc.?

I have also flirted with a different style, very low-profile M/S holder made from: (1) machined rectangular aluminium prism, 65x30x20 cm , (2) bored out with two "almost-coalesciing Schoeps-diameter tunnels", (3) block then cleaved vertically, (4) the two cleft pieces fitted with threadings to allow stand mounting plus a thumbscrew arrangement, to re-tighten the two halves back into a snug enclosure around the inserted mics. [yes, yes a simple pic would trump any ponderous prose :-)] This allowed very rapid set up - but I lost some enthusiasm when I squeamishly started to imagine hearing faint resonance or vibration artefacts.

Tom

"Music is the greatest silent force in the world." - Lionel Richie, mtv interview

[MichaelPatrick]

Originally Posted by panatrope

Also, re the MK21orMK4/MK8 in the AMS22, when the connector ends of the preamp bodies are aligned, the capsule diaphragms are also directly aligned one above the other. And the neat cable clamp is quite useful ...

Didn't know that. That'll make alignment easy. Can't wait to get my hands on it!