Will using a PAD, Kill my schoeps CMIT5u?

[mark.frost]

Hey fellas,

As an early Christmas present, by my over eager wife, I was given a
new Schoeps CMIT 5u.

I'm very grateful, but I only have a Fostex FR2-LE recorder, the topic of field recorder compatibility with microphones, never came up in our romance together...

I know i need a better recorder, and mixer.

But for now... can I just use an "Attenuator PAD" instead to lower my output frequency, or do i risk permanently damage this sensitive microphone?

Schoepes says nothing about a pad on the specs.

[Kiwi]

So it's clipping the Fostex line inputs is it? Sure - use a pad, if you have to. But ideally, just lower the gain of the Fostex so it doesn't clip.

A pad can't damage a mic. It's there to prevent clipping in the preamp that follows the mic.

[micfoley]

I agree with Kiwi. A pad can't damage a mic, you're field recorder should work fine for now.

[micfoley]

with that Set Up your gonna have a lotta other issues to deal with down the road.

at least if you plan on using it for commercial purposes. ...

[mark.frost]

Thank you for you advice Kiwi. I'm lookin at some
Inline Attenuators MDZ 10 / MDZ 20


Inline Attenuators MDZ*10*/*MDZ*20 - Overview - SCHOEPS.de

by Schoepes. They're supposedly flawless and reduce impudence in my mics.

And MICFOLEY, what are some of the big issues you see forthcoming with this setup?

[mark.frost]

has any one heard anything about the
Inline Attenuators MDZ 10 / MDZ 20

by schoepes? worth the money or go with a $20 version on ebay?

[micfoley]

It really depends on what you use it for. For nature recording it should be just fine. For film, you'd obvious need more microphones- as a first thing- I hope you have that.

Also, your budget field recorder, will destroy whatever polished quality you'd normally get from the Schoepes CMIT.

Check out some of the oade updates: @

OADE BROTHERS AUDIO Field Recording Experts, Sony, Tascam, Marantz, Fostex, Compact Flash recorders


there's a start.... Am I wrong thinking this? what does everyone else think?

[micfoley]

We completely hogged this post frosty.

[andychamp]

Originally Posted by mark.frost

Thank you for you advice Kiwi. I'm lookin at some
Inline Attenuators MDZ 10 / MDZ 20


Inline Attenuators MDZ*10*/*MDZ*20 - Overview - SCHOEPS.de

by Schoepes. They're supposedly flawless and reduce impudence in my mics.

And MICFOLEY, what are some of the big issues you see forthcoming with this setup?

Why would a company like Schoeps offer a product capable of damaging another one of their products?

[micfoley]

maybe, The schoepes will kill you recorder though.

48 volt phantom probably won't run a schoepes. Check the ma on the scheopes. and see it requires more than you recorder can provide.

[tsvisser]

First off, your wife is awesome.

Secondly, I think that the FR-2LE is a fine recorder. I haven't tried that combination myself, but I wasn't aware of a phantom power issue with that combination. Do you actually need a pad or are you assuming that you do in order to "protect the microphone"? Pads in no circumstances do anything for the mic, they lower the output levels that your mic preamps see, so are only used when your recording something so loud that it causes your preamps to clip. If your not clipping, then you don't need the pads. I happen to own the MDZ10 pads, but can't say that they are any better or worse than any other manufacturer's pad. There more of a utility thing, not necessarily a critical audible component.

[mark.frost]

The fostex fr2le max output is 300 mW,

if 1 mw=1Ma, it'd mean that a

4.4 mA microphone could be supported. I'm just not sure if 1 mW=1 Ma always????

[mark.frost]

and my wife is awesome, thank you visser.

[mark.frost]

I'm reading more about the basics...

about mic impedance, output sensitivity, self noise, and power req before even risking plugging in the mic.

I never worried about any of this stuff with my ECM 672 and it just ran fine.

[tsvisser]

Originally Posted by mark.frost

The fostex fr2le max output is 300 mW,

if 1 mw=1Ma, it'd mean that a

4.4 mA microphone could be supported. I'm just not sure if 1 mW=1 Ma always????

unless my math / logic is screwing, 300 mW @ 48VDC should be 300 / 48 = 6.25 mA current capability.

[mark.frost]

I read on this article that:


"Phantom powering is not always implemented correctly or adequately, even in professional-quality preamps, mixers, and recorders. In part this is because first-generation (late-1960s through mid-1970s) 48-volt phantom-powered condenser microphones had simple circuitry and required only small amounts of operating current (typically less than 1 mA per microphone), so the phantom supply circuits typically built into recorders, mixers, and preamps of that time were designed on the assumption that this current would be adequate. The original DIN 45596 phantom-power specification called for a maximum of 2 mA. This practice has carried forward to the present; many 48-volt phantom power supply circuits, especially in low-cost and portable equipment, simply cannot supply more than 1 or 2 mA total without breaking down. Some circuits also have significant additional resistance in series with the standard pair of supply resistors for each microphone input; this may not affect low-current microphones much, but it can disable microphones that need more current."- Phantom power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not sure. You're probably right visser.

[theblue1]

Originally Posted by mark.frost

I'm reading more about the basics...

about mic impedance, output sensitivity, self noise, and power req before even risking plugging in the mic.

I never worried about any of this stuff with my ECM 672 and it just ran fine.

You'll be glad you boned up in the long run. I have never once wished that I knew less about how things work.