Which pair of Earthworks for classical/orchestral stuff?

[PoxyMusic]

Originally Posted by MichaelPatrick

Is this a Swedish / Swiss dfegadoff?

Almost 200 years of neutrality is starting to show! I think they're getting a little tense.

[jnorman]

cat5 is spot on with the recommendation for the AKG C480/ck62 omni. the C480 series is extremely nice, and i have used them interchangeably with DPA mics. very flat, open and smooth character.

[sonare]

Originally Posted by jnorman

i have used miniature capsule omnis on many occasions for classical work, and in this day of effective noise reduction software, taking care of bit of mic hiss just doesnt seem to be that much of a problem. and i frankly like the amazingly smooth off-axis response of small capsule omnis like the DPA 4061s and 4090s, and the earthworks QTC series.

But there is no free lunch. I use Algorithmix Noisefree and Izotope and there is an unavoidable loss of transients in HF when enough NR is dialed in to remove hiss or HVAC. There is no cookie-cutter method of removing any kind of noise-- by far the best strategy is to use a quiet room or record after midnight.

I suppose you could use 4060/61/90/91 and use the NR to "EQ" the 12kHz rise back down to normal, however.

Rich

[boojum]

Originally Posted by sonare

<snip>

I suppose you could use 4060/61/90/91 and use the NR to "EQ" the 12kHz rise back down to normal, however.

Rich

Removing the grid from the 4060/4061 gives them a flat response. No need then for correction.

[jnorman]

rich - i have found fairly effective to let the NR software do the sample, and then decrease the reduction effect by about 30-40%. the software is designed to attempt to reduce the sampled noise to something like -90dB, when in reality, we only need to get it down somewhere around -40 to -50dB. random loud intrusions have to be individually dealt with by other methods.

[sonare]

Originally Posted by boojum

Removing the grid form the 4060/4061 gives them a flat response. No need then for correction.

I was mistaken when I named the 4090/91-- they are flat. The 4060/61 however has a 12kHz rise-- and as was pointed out-- a little more noise than desirable thanks to the very small diameter capsule. Simply flattening that rise also helps to reduce the noise if objectionable. Personally I like the sound better flat. One can always remove the grill and accomplish the same thing.

Rich

[didier.brest]

The 4060 self-noise level is lower than the one from 4061. I am using a pair of 4060 for recording piano at home and did not notice any noise excess with respect to other condensers with larger caps.

[Alexey Lukin]

Originally Posted by sonare

But there is no free lunch. I use Algorithmix Noisefree and Izotope and there is an unavoidable loss of transients in HF when enough NR is dialed in to remove hiss or HVAC.

If you are only seeking to remove HVAC noise, which is concentrated at lows and mids, use the RX Denoiser's curve control to specify which frequency areas need noise reduction. This way you'll be able to prevent any change to your HF transients.

[chris319]

Are the Earthworks mics really so full of magic that you're better off using them and removing the hiss after the fact, than using a quieter mic to begin with?

[PoxyMusic]

Originally Posted by chris319

Are the Earthworks mics really so full of magic that you're better off using them and removing the hiss after the fact, than using a quieter mic to begin with?

They're the "go to" mic for recording unicorns, I'll tell you what.


I think you already know the answer to your question.

[Audiop]

Originally Posted by chris319

Are the Earthworks mics really so full of magic that you're better off using them and removing the hiss after the fact, than using a quieter mic to begin with?

No magic, it's just that flat response in both the free field and diffuse field translates to a very natural sound in many situations. I would not hesitate to pay 5000 Euro or more for a pair of such omnis with a self noise figure of 10dBA. Unfortunately such a mic will not be around in my lifetime I suspect.


/Peter

[JEGG]

Originally Posted by meltemi

Yes, but the compensation is electrical, not mechanical.

So what? Each method has advantages and disadvantages. And since the MKH system is EQ based anyway, it would seem a little silly not to offer it this way.

If you want a mechanically based system, then simply use the supplied option of the pressure rings.

Really, people getting hung up on THE one or A way to the exclusion of others is getting tiring.

[JEGG]

Originally Posted by meltemi

Yes, but the compensation is electrical, not mechanical.

So what? Each method has advantages and disadvantages. And since the MKH system is EQ based anyway, it would seem a little silly not to offer it this way.

If you want a mechanically based system, then simply use the supplied option of the pressure rings. Or make a ball and stick it on the end of the mic, as I've also done.

Really, people getting hung up on THE one or A way to the exclusion of others of accomplishing things is getting tiring. Really tiring.

[sonare]

Originally Posted by Alexey Lukin

If you are only seeking to remove HVAC noise, which is concentrated at lows and mids, use the RX Denoiser's curve control to specify which frequency areas need noise reduction. This way you'll be able to prevent any change to your HF transients.

I beg to differ-- HVAC is a broadband problem. Most of the energy may be LF and mid, but the "SSSS" is HF. and each system presents a different noise signature. I have also had situation of the same system with more than one "sound."

The transient thing is very subtle and may not be a big bother-- it depends on the program material.

Rich

[joelpatterson]

My simple mind has a hard time with this here idea: since EW knows, explicitly, precisely, scientifically exactly WHAT the content and spectral value and yin and yang and zen of the "self-noise" is...

... well, why can't they somehow concoct an "inverse" of this that is fed into the signal as it leaves the mic and therefore cancel it out?

Is this like asking how tall a ladder would it take to reach the Moon?

[boojum]

Originally Posted by joelpatterson

My simple mind has a hard time with this here idea: since EW knows, explicitly, precisely, scientifically exactly WHAT the content and spectral value and yin and yang and zen of the "self-noise" is...

... well, why can't they somehow concoct an "inverse" of this that is fed into the signal as it leaves the mic and therefore cancel it out?

Is this like asking how tall a ladder would it take to reach the Moon?

Joel, my simple mind says that if it were possible it would have been done. The product would be nearly perfect then. The same would hold true for the tiny DPA 4060/61.

[joelpatterson]

Unless, maybe... I'm the first person to think of it??? The Einstein of self-noise???

[d_fu]

Originally Posted by joelpatterson

My simple mind has a hard time with this here idea: since EW knows, explicitly, precisely, scientifically exactly WHAT the content and spectral value and yin and yang and zen of the "self-noise" is...
... well, why can't they somehow concoct an "inverse" of this that is fed into the signal as it leaves the mic and therefore cancel it out?

Since a microphones electronic self-noise is a random signal, how likely would a random "anti-noise" be to cancel it out even remotely...?

[Alexey Lukin]

Originally Posted by sonare

I beg to differ-- HVAC is a broadband problem. Most of the energy may be LF and mid, but the "SSSS" is HF.

Sure, I just meant that most audible HVAC noise is often at lows and mids, not at highs. And this curve helps you tailor the processing to certain frequency areas.

[mathieujm]

Originally Posted by d_fu

Since a microphones electronic self-noise is a random signal, how likely would a random "anti-noise" be to cancel it out even remotely...?

random noise but specific frequency spectrum of this noise.
Denoisers use this spectrum in the frequency domain to work.
But I never saw any denoiser totally free of artefacts when removing wide spectrum noises at low level.
And for me the noise was more "musical" than the artefacts...

JMM

[d_fu]

Originally Posted by mathieujm

random noise but specific frequency spectrum of this noise.
Denoisers use this spectrum in the frequency domain to work.

Joel was referring to an "inverse" signal and "cancelling out" specifically, not denoising. And so was I...

[jnorman]

inre: "the noise was more "musical" than the artefacts..."

now that's a good quote.

[joelpatterson]

Originally Posted by d_fu

Joel was referring to an "inverse" signal and "cancelling out" specifically, not denoising. And so was I...

Yes you were, and so was I... so maybe I don't need to be the Einstein but more the Nostradamus...

Here's the alternate approach-- take the audio signal hitting the mic-- then invert that to cancel it out-- then take what's left (le noise)-- then invert that, canceling IT out-- then bring back the audio signal again. Granted, this must all be done very quickly, and without anyone noticing...

[didier.brest]

Originally Posted by joelpatterson

My simple mind has a hard time with this here idea: since EW knows, explicitly, precisely, scientifically exactly WHAT the content and spectral value and yin and yang and zen of the "self-noise" is...

... well, why can't they somehow concoct an "inverse" of this that is fed into the signal as it leaves the mic and therefore cancel it out?

Is this like asking how tall a ladder would it take to reach the Moon?

Yes.

The only a priori information you can get about noise is its mean distribution of power in frequency. By no way this is sufficient for removing exactly the random noise in a given take. It just allow for setting the parameters of 'denoising' methods implemented in plugins like X-noise etc.

Originally Posted by joelpatterson

Here's the alternate approach-- take the audio signal hitting the mic-- then invert that to cancel it out-- then take what's left (le noise)-- then invert that, canceling IT out-- then bring back the audio signal again. Granted, this must all be done very quickly, and without anyone noticing...

You are assuming that one would be able to pick up the signal without noise...

[joelpatterson]

Originally Posted by didier.brest

... You are assuming that one would be able to pick up the signal without noise...

Good point. Probably would call for the old "microphone within a microphone" technique, preferably one without so much noise...