TRICK!!!: how to make your ME66 mic sound like a MHK416 mic

[Graham Bernard]

No, no no SPOT .. Arggh .. my mistake.

Spot I wasn't referring to the Audio but the Video/Picture quality, using the comparison of 8mm to that of 16mm. Meaning bigger format more "chemical" information, more quality. I was comparing something I do know about. The Mag thing I aint a clue, it was my way of giving a "pictorial" comparison, that is . ., "The same cannot be said the same of 8mm to 16mm film. Put 8mm on the same size screen as the 16mm .. yeah? .. " see what I meant Spot.. ?

Grazie

[Jose di Cani]

Digital for me is the only way. It's cheap, upgradable and it is becoming better and better.

So why do profesional musicians (it is better to talk about musicians than moviemakers,cause musicians or recording studios are all about sound) prefer to record their sound onto analog decks? It is all about noise. Do you really think that noise is not-wanted. Not true. Noise sometimes tells a story. Sound coming from analog decks sound warm, rough and true. Sound coming from your labtob sounds cold, rough and SUPERTRUE. Movies are seen as wam and TRUE. AMATEUR VHS footage is seen as cold and SUPERTRUE.
Do you want the real representation of sound/image or do you prefer to have fantasy-look kind of sound/image? I prefer both. So digital is for me the way to go. Besides that digital solutions are becoming cheaper and cheaper and let's be honoust.....evrybody has a pc or mac. Does evrybody have a DAT recorder nowadays? I don't think so. So go with the flow and the flow is heading towards digital recording and plug-ins.

What did I mean with real-time recording through soundcards? Well, let me tell you. Record it, see the wavefoms being shaped on screen, sto recording and you can instantly move sounds around, delete sounds, reverse sounds....you can even PRODUCE your movie on field, like the newsguy do. Look at photographers...labtobs are used there like marsmallows!

And are labtobs heavy??? no. Are they portable. YEp! Are they cheap?? Depends. DO they give good results on the long run. I bet ya. It is so easy to change a soundcard. YOu can attach mididevices to it or other hardware mixers (firewire). Awrrggg. I wish I had a analog tape machine from 1970 worth 30.000 dollars. I love the sound of it. It doesn't give the real representation of sound, cause it is warmed-up version. But it is warm as hell. BUt liek most of you people....we are poor and digital is the only way sometimes. And I love it.

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

I wish I had a analog tape machine from 1970 worth 30.000 dollars.

I've got an old Stevens 24 machine that needs head relapping you can have for 5K and shipping. Head relapping will likely be 2-3K, I've not looked for the cost in years.
You can't GIVE these things away in LA or Nashville. They show up on Ebay regularly.

[Emre Safak]

Sound coming from analog decks sound warm, rough and true. Sound coming from your labtob sounds cold, rough and SUPERTRUE.

I understand that some artists want to imbue their work with feeling, rather than merely reproducing reality. However, I feel that such alterations should be done in post, where one has most flexibility. If you do everything at the capturing stage, there is no going back. I simply do not like to limit my options. Others may feel that tying their hands behind their backs gives them a creative challenge.

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Emre,
you are right in this. Some folks apply compression for instance, at the point of recording. I rarely do. But, sometimes these practices are part of the actual instrument "sound". For instance, getting the famous Hugh Padgham 'crack' you have to use compression at the record stage.

In other words, it's entirely dependent on how the art is being created. Another example, based on doing EVERYTHING in post, would be to record a non-distored electric guitar, and add the "right" distortion in post. Unfortunately, neither the musician, the band, nor the engineer would be in a good space creatively if this was the practice.

So, it goes both ways, sometimes done in post, sometimes done in practice.

[Alessandro Machi]

I don't agree that digital captures real sound better than analog simply because digital capture quality continues to improve. If it keeps improving I very much doubt that the earlier digital versions were better than the best of the analog versions.

VHS/S-VHS-HI-FI is wonderful for recording opera.

BetaCam SP audio is excellent for dialogue.

S-VHS HI-FI can be a decent compromise for live events IF one uses the top of the line playback equipment and remasters the footage to either digital or BetaCam SP.

Analog's biggest drawback is not the quality, it's that it costs more money to make available all of those user friendly knobs and dials. Digital video decks tend to be more automatic with less control over useful features and therefore cheaper to mass market.

However, a digital video deck in conjunction with the right computer can be a wonderful thing.

[Alessandro Machi]

<<<-- Originally posted by Douglas Spotted Eagle : 12 bit, 32K audio means the audio is sampled LESS frequently than 16 bit/48K audio. The fewer the bits, the smaller the sample size and therefore the less detail is found. For the human speaking voice, 12 bit is about as far as you can dumb down the audio and still maintain decent integrity.
week. -->>>

But are you saying that 12k mini-dv audio is "raw" and uncompressed? It seems to me that less sampling could be called a form of compression since the result is the same, less data used to create the signal.

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

>>>>Analog's biggest drawback is not the quality,<<<<<

Here, I have to disagree with you. Analog's biggest drawback is the noise. If we could have the signal to noise of digital with the saturation of analog....damn but we'd have a great thing.
Digital boards can actually cost more to manufacture than analog, depending on the structure and features of the console.
Even the new Euphonix MC is VERY much more than a Mackie Onyx, and the Mackie Onyx will sound better overall. But it will be much, much noisier.

[Alessandro Machi]

If you ever get a chance to play around with a professional level S-VHS deck like a Panasonic 7350 or a JVC-BRS822 you might be surprised at how good the HI-FI out is.

the Dolby linear Stereo tracks sound a heck of lot better than the 43DB they are rated at.

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Alessandro, many years ago, before the advent of DAT, that's what we used to MASTER audio to was SVHS. Read thru the thread, I STILL own a Stevens machine, and only recently got rrid of a boatload (24 channels) of Dolby 361's. (361's are dual Dolby A and SR units, still used for many film soundtracks to allow for quiet to roar without inherent signal to noise) Thank heaven for Ebay.
Believe me, I'm waaaayyyy past the age of remembering mastering to SVHS. Probably older than you'd think I am. But I'm still younger than Bryan.

[Rob Lohman]

<<<-- Originally posted by Alessandro Machi : But are you saying that 12k mini-dv audio is "raw" and uncompressed? It seems to me that less sampling could be called a form of compression since the result is the same, less data used to create the signal. -->>>

In that light everything is compressed, including analog since it
will still not sound as if you where there.

Spot was talking about that the signal is not futher compressed
after the A->D conversion. So the data is sampled at either
16 bit / 48 kHz (2 channel audio) or 12 bit / 32 kHz (4 channel
audio) and is then STORED INSIDE THE DV STREAM AS IS.

So it is not (futher, in your mindset) compressed, which is
what things like MP3, AC3, dts do for example.

The signal coming from DV is as it was "recorded" by your camera.

p.s. if you want to have it described in numbers:

48 kHz x 16 bit x 2 channels = 192000 bytes per second (or 11 MB/min.)
32 kHz x 12 bit x 4 channels = 192000 bytes per second (or 11 MB/min.)

So they have the exact same bitrate. And this is also the exact
same bitrate you get inside a DV stream (thus it is uncompressed!)

[Alessandro Machi]

Ok.

So after it is somewhat compressed going from the initial analog (the environment) to digital stage, it is then recorded as is in the digital domain.

Is the quality of the 16K completely dependent on the head end of the camera that converts the audio signal to digital?

Is a standalone digital 16k recorder "better" than a 16K camcorder digital recording signal, in other words if one could go line in to both a stand alone 16 digital recorder and a camcorder, would the audio quality be the same for both methods?

How "close" in quality is HI-FI analog to either of the two methods described above?

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

It depends ENTIRELY on the quality of signal being fed to the DAC, and then the quality of conversion that the DAC provides. This is what you pay for, the qualtiy of the DAC.
That's what makes the total difference between a Creative Sound Labs card and an Apogee 2k.
So, good heads are important, but by the time the audio hits the tape head, it's already been converted by the camera's DAC. Personally, I've yet to hear a digital camera that blew me away for quality of conversion.
On the other hand, when you're buying a 5K camera, compare that to the 1K of a VERY good multichannel sound card, or the 3K cost of an amazing 2 channel sound card.
The front end of a digital system is critical, where the backend isn't so important once you have dig audio. In the analog world, front end, back end, middle....all are critical. All the time.

[Ty Ford]

Originally posted by Jose di Cani : Thanks for the replies.
But i fyou know what the strenghts are of the MKH mic, then you can use those strenghts and translate them to audio frequencies. YOu can easily FOOl a ' standard' movie addict. They will not notice the difference. If you got the money, sure..go and buy the mhk for conversations outdoor. BUt every mic nowadays (1000$ and lower) all use chips. And in this pc world we live in it is so easy to fix things and to achieve the same sound that was obtainted in the older days with valve tubes and stuff like that.

With all due respect. I once made an RE20 "sound like" a Neumann U87 by futzing with EQ. Yes, for that one moment (in that particular and very specific application) it sort of worked.

On the other hand, unless your regular use of the mic is also similarly restricted, you won't get the same results

I don't quite get your comment about chips. Even the most expensive mics use solid state parts. The construction of their capsules and the rest of the mic accounts for the major difference between cheap crap and good stuff. Attention to detail costs. Transient response can not be simulated. Off-axis phase anomalies can not be corrected for. Distortions and raised selfnoise due to cheap or slack design can't be compensated for.

----
PC plug-ins have evolved to great machines, able to do the same exact thing. It takes a little bit more work, but you can save your presets and use 1000 plugins one 1 track.

I have the edited wav version at home (I used the maxbass to add the lower bass) and I must say....it sounds pretty similar to me. PLay it for some teenagers and they will not notice the difference, especially if you add background music and stuff like that.

That's fine, but mics and preamps are different.

On the third hand, if you can't hear the difference, it doesn't matter!

Regards,

Ty

[Jose di Cani]

Ty ford,

Exactly!! I f you can't hear which analog mixers or 10000 dollar digital workstations are used, then why PAY for them?

Digital has improved. Soundcards nowadays are soo good, almost perfect. The only thing that should happen is dropping of the prices. Look at firewire nowadays. That is inovation!

Alessandri is right as well, cause for me Digital sound is true sound and you can better add effects after you have recorded everything.

BUT, if you add compression while you record, you have a lower noise-to-signal ratio, thus having more BITS and SPice. Too much and you will end up with ricky martin compressed stuff. Don't! Compression plugins are so sexy today.

so basically you can make a ME66 microphone sound like a expensive one. IF you don't hear the difference, people won't notice it. I can fool people easily with my vocals. reallly I do. YOu don't hear the DIfference.