Jump to content

Throwback

Members
  • Content count

    25
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Throwback

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    UK
  • Interested in Sound for Picture
    Yes
  • About
    Archaeologist, starting to make specialist documentaries

Recent Profile Visitors

389 profile views
  1. That's because SD only announced plans to extend the Musicians' plug-in to the Mixpre-3 on Thursday. They made an announcement via Facebook (see below) and updated the feature comparison chart accordingly. Cheers, Roland
  2. Next level on-camera microphone in M/S

    Many thanks for posting the test recording. Goodness, that sounds as if it is a very different frequency response for the fig 8 than the claimed '40 - 20000 Hz +/- 2.5 dB', but that could simply reflect your test: if you are going to do a different test, it would be nice, at some point during the test, to hear your voice, in turn, on axis and the same distance from the S and M mic as you move around and, indeed, any other tests (a piano?) to show any exaggerated bass roll off on the fig 8 mic. The obvious alternative - the Ambient ATE 208 Emesser - certainly lacks much in the way of low frequencies, with its specified +/- 3 dB: 200 - 16,000 Hz response: in this case Ambient sets out the reasons for the bass roll-off (http://ambient.de/en/product/emesser/) and it may be that Kortwich is doing exactly the same. Such bass roll off may be fine in a fig 8 for your purpose, or even a positive, though, for some, it would limit the wider usefulness of the mic (and, thus, an MKH30 would be a much better, though expensive, choice - with many other gains too: RF resistance to humidity, lower noise etc.) You are right that there are no obvious thorough reviews of the ATE 208 Emesser, though there are plenty of positive comments on this forum (e.g. ) and elsewhere (e.g. from John Willet). Cheers, Roland
  3. Next level on-camera microphone in M/S

    Thanks for all the photos and dimensions. Yes, very clearly back-to-back cardioids, as with the Oktava MK012 fig 8, but less clunky. Rather surprised, given the L/R output option, that it has a standard 3-pin xlr. Do please add any further information from the datasheet you get when the new one you are buying arrives. Interested that you went for this option rather than the better known, MBHO-made, Ambient ATE 208 Emesser, with its more compact form and true single diaphragm, that you were considering previously. Any particular reason? Pricing of the two here in the UK is pretty much identical. Cheers, Roland
  4. Next level on-camera microphone in M/S

    That's kind of you to offer to test. Given your equipment and experience, I wouldn't spend too much time on testing (although posting a recording with the raw M and S signals might be instructive: something that reveals the higher self noise of the fig 8, which you referred to earlier, might be instructive). Easier to do, however, would be to provide more details of the fig 8 mic, as suggested in an earlier post by me. This would be especially valuable given the paucity of information regarding the mic on Kortwich's own website and more generally on line. Close-up photos of the mic would be helpful. As mentioned previously, areas of interest include: Is the fig 8 mic really two cardioid capsules quite widely spaced, as the T-shape and Kortwich's statement that it is 'equally suitable for...L/R stereo' [!] suggest? How far apart are the capsules? What is the connector - the L/R stereo use suggests a 5-pin XLR, but is that the case? Can you provide additional specs to the minimal ones on line? E.g. sensitivity, the signal to noise ratio, frequency response graph, dimensions and weight. Some of these may be on a data sheet that came with the mic (I would hope so!) - a photo of that would be informative. Cheers, Roland
  5. Next level on-camera microphone in M/S

    Good to hear that you have made a decision. Are you going to provide any details about the fig 8 mic? Given the dearth of information, this would be a useful contribution. Cheers, Roland
  6. Next level on-camera microphone in M/S

    I think i) that very few have tested or used the Kortwich 8 (there is little available about it on line); ii) you have the advantage over most of us in that you have one to hand, so perhaps you could provide details of the mic that are so oddly lacking from Kortwich's website (is it really two cardioid capsules quite widely spaced, as the T-shape and Kortwich's statement that it is 'equally suitable for...L/R stereo' [!] suggests, and, if so, how far apart; what is the connector [the L/R stereo use suggests a 5-pin XLR, but is that the case?]; what is the sensitivity; what is the signal to noise; and what are the dimensions and weight?), and perhaps provide some close-up photos and even some (preferably comparative) samples? iii) this thread is covering some similar ground to a previous thread started by you 2 years ago, where you talked about testing both the Emesser ATE208 and the Kortwich 8. Providing more info as suggested above may help move discussion forward. Cheers, Roland
  7. Sound Devices Mix Pre-3 and Mix Pre-6

    Ditto re MS decoding to LR to headphones while recording the M and S as isos, but I don't use stereo (your 'regular') linking unless the mics have identical output (and my MS pairs rarely do). Cheers, Roland
  8. Rycote Mic Protector case

    Not much to add having one in the flesh (the 200mm version). Very solid/tough/rigid overall tube/case. Handy for including different capsules in the smaller tubes with the mics (here, just by way of an example is an NT55 with its other capsule too). The smaller tubes are a very tight fit in the overall case. Cheers, Roland
  9. Sound Devices Mix Pre-3 and Mix Pre-6

    As an option having MS ISOs and MS>LR for the mix would be welcome, of course, even if not something that I would use personally: this is rather different than mjw353's first post seemingly wanting this as the only option (and, indeed, suggesting that this was SD's intention and, by implication, another MS bug [there was, of course, a bug in the early firmware relating to use of the pan controls in both MS and stereo linked modes]). Cheers, Roland
  10. Sound Devices Mix Pre-3 and Mix Pre-6

    Hello M, My Mixpre-3 functions as you describe, but I can't see the problem: if I am recording MS linked I want LR stereo on ISOs and on the main mix and likewise MS on both if recording MS unlinked and simply monitoring as LR stereo on headphones. If it only decoded MS to the mix then you would have issues if recording other channels at the same time, and plenty of scope for confusion. Looking at the Mixpre-6 manual (in case there is a difference) I can't see where it states that the ISOs will remain if MS linking and, indeed, I can't see how the gain staging with linking option (p. 21) would work: please could you clarify? Cheers, Roland
  11. Line level recorder

    The Zoom F4 isn't such a 'no brainer' in the UK, where the OP is based, and is only £90 or so cheaper than the Mixpre-3: as you want a line-level recorder not a digital bit bucket, I'd go for the Mixpre-3's better headroom on line-level input and the lower self-noise. Assuming that the need for line-level recording means there is a very good preamp feeding the recorder, the Marantz PDM706 or other cheaper options (e.g. Tascam DR70D) would seem unwise: if this isn't the case, and there is some other reason for the line-level signal, then these might do the trick for a lot less. Cheers, Roland
  12. MixPre-6 or a second hand 552?

    No implication that it is digital gain (and the SD spec for gain 'Total, Mic-to-recording (max): +96dB') is consistent with non-digital gain (as, indeed, supported by actual use). See earlier discussion: Cheers, Roland
  13. Sound Devices Mix Pre-3 and Mix Pre-6

    Hi dkm, I agree with Chris that, even if all else was equal in the preamps, the EIN differences would be all but indistinguishable, not least since, if you remove the mix of dBV and dBu the two are more obviously closer in spec: the Mixpre 3/6 specs are -128dBu and the 633 is -126 dBu, and the latter is not a reason to hold back on a 633. Cheers, Roland
  14. Sound Devices Mix Pre-3 and Mix Pre-6

    And just to clarify, in my test phantom power on or off made no difference: either way there was no issue. Cheers, Roland
  15. Sound Devices Mix Pre-3 and Mix Pre-6

    OK, have checked: my Mixpre-3 shows the same level of noise in each channel (each bobbing up and down from 1-3 steps/lines of pixels on the LCD - about 2-3mm max on the screen). And all drop to (equal) extremely low noise when plugging in a low self-noise mic (4.5dba). All entirely as expected. Hope this helps. Cheers, Roland
×