Mic Pre's/mixer for Oktava MC012...

[Bigus Dickus]

I'm interested in micing my grand piano. After reading the long and terrific thread by Harvey Gerst, and using the search feature extensively here, I've narrowed my mic choices (in my price range) down to a pair of Oktava MC012's or MXL 603's. I'm leaning towards a matched pair of Oktava's from the Sound Room, or preferrably a used pair if I can find them. Unless you guys convince me otherwise.

The next question is mic pre or mixer? I only need two channels, and I seriously doubt this will grow into a hobby... I'm looking for a dedicated setup for recording my grand whenever I'm in the mood, or happen to be playing a piece well.

On a side note, I have a Delta DiO 2496 soundcard which only has digital inputs, no analog. If I stick with that instead of buying a new $200+ soundcard, then I'll need a pre/mixer with built in A/D converter, or a standalone unit (which would probably run more than the price of a new card).

In the computer recording forum, someone suggested the DBX 386, which is a dual channel mic pre with built in A/D and some other goodies. For $500, that would allow me to keep my current Delta soundcard. I'm guessing (but only guessing) that the A/D converters in the DBX would be comparable to or better quality than most ~$200 soundcards. Is this guess reasonable? Does anyone have any experience with this pre, and know if it is of good sonic quality?

Now, I'm not sure if I need just a pair of pre's, or a mixer. What would be the benefit of a mixer for my specific need? Are there any you guys know of that have a built in A/D converter?

Any and all suggestions here would be appreciated. I'm narrowing down the list of equipment I want/need, but whether to go with pre's, mixer, standalone A/D, new soundcard, etc. is still a bit foggy. The DBX 386 looks nice, but I'm curious as to whether there is a cheaper alternative or combination that would be as good or better.

[edit] it just struck me that, though I intended to ask questions more about mics, my questions began to wander more to other things, and this might belong in another forum. Feel free to move it if that is so. [/edit]

 

[chessrock]

I'm guessing (but only guessing) that the A/D converters in the DBX would be comparable to or better quality than most ~$200 soundcards. Is this guess reasonable? Does anyone have any experience with this pre, and know if it is of good sonic quality?

The a/d conversion is excellent for the money. A nice step up, I'd say, from a typical $200 sound card. The conversion process is such that you can't clip the signal -- so it's kind of like having a built-in limiter in a way, allowing for more headroom.

The preamp section is pretty decent. I'll warn you it's pretty good on some things . . . not so great on others.

I went with the Mindprint DI port, myself, because I thought the pres were a tad nicer; not as picky about the mic you plug in to it. Nice open sound on dynamics, in particular. The a/d conversion, while still very good for the money, doesn't have the headroom (and safety net) you get with the dbx.

The ultimate solution to me would be if someone could combine mindprint's pres with the 386's a/d.

 

[Richard Monroe]

I use the 386, and the A-D converters are quite good. Sometimes the limiting effect Chessrock refers to can be a pain, especially if I want to get more gain without using the drive in the preamp section. I've found it goes very well with the RNC compressor ($180). For louder signals, I use the RNC as a send and return from the DBX, simply adding compression. In that mode, boosting the gain of the RNC will only overload the DBX, causing clipping. However, for softer signals, I occasionally put the RNC in line from the line outs on the DBX, boosting the gain before it hits the recorder. This would not be an option with your sound card, as the RNC has no digital I/O's. All in all, the 386 is a fairly good pre, but it can be difficult to get a hot enough signal without using a lot of drive, which adds selective distortion that I find fairly useless. In short, the DBX is a useful tool, but it's more likely than not to be used when I've already comitted both channels of a Joemeek twinQcs. The twinQ is a lovely 2 channel pre which can be very clean if you don't use a lot of compression, but with the optional digital converter, it's more like $850.-Richie

 

[Bigus Dickus]

Well, some opinions on a couple of questions would be useful then. Since I'm just getting into this whole scene, for the sole purpose of recording my grand, I really have no idea if a not-so-hot signal would be a problem, and I also have no idea if I will need compression.

Can someone explain what compression is useful for, or at least point me to a nice "for dummies" explanation? I know... I'm going for the search button as we speak, but sometimes it takes quite some time to find that magic explanation.

From what you two have told me, the A/D is fairly good, better than a $200 soundcard. For comparison sake, what price range would I be looking at for a pair of pre's or a two channel mixer with with pre's of equal quality to the DBX. I can add that to the ~$200/$250 soundcard price and see if the DBX is really costing me much more, or saving me money, whichever the case may be.

Oh... and I'm still ignorant on what benefit a two channel mixer might be to me over a pair of pre's. I don't want to be to hasty and wish later I had a mixer instead, if there is any benefit for my project. I was kind of thinking that anything a mixer does could be replicated in the computer digitally, but I've read nothing that confirms that hunch.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

Re: Re: Mic Pre's/mixer for Oktava MC012...

The preamp section is pretty decent. I'll warn you it's pretty good on some things . . . not so great on others.

Thanks for the advice. Could you be a bit more specific here perhaps? I'm looking to record a grand, in a small room, with a pair of small diaphram condensor omni's or cardioid mics... probably the MC012's or MXL 603's. Would that fall into the "pretty good" category, or the "not so great" category?

 

[chessrock]

Re: Re: Re: Mic Pre's/mixer for Oktava MC012...

Could you be a bit more specific here perhaps?

Uh . . . yea. Sometimes you might plug a particular mic in to it on a particular day, and it will sound pretty good. Plug another mic in to it on another day and it will sound like ass. In my limited experience, I found it rather unpredictable as to when/how I was going to get brilliance vs ass, although I'll grant you the brilliance to ass ratio wasn't particularly bad.

BTW, I wasn't aware that a 2-channel mixer even existed, and if it does, then I don't really see the point if you're going to be mixing on your computer.

If you're just recording a stereo signal on to your sound card, as is, then a mixer might be a good option in case you want to do some, uh, panning or whatever . . . I guess.

 

[chessrock]

BTW, here's my theory on compression:

https://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?threadid=52937&highlight=chessrock+dog+leash

 

[darrin_h2000]

Ive read about that Apogee preamp, that may be pretty good in this situation,

 

[littledog]

Dear Phallus Majoris:

Speaking as a fellow grand piano owner/recorder, I can share some of my experiences:

1) Solo piano recordings don't usually require compression. Often it is detrimental.

2) Your small diaphragm mics will have plenty of signal, especially if placed within a foot or so of the strings. Signal strength should not be a problem.

3) I ususally prefer small omnis to small cardioids on solo piano. This is because there is very little proximity effect or directionality in the omnis. This means you don't have to worry much about the strings right under the mics sounding much more present than the neighboring strings, which means you can do closer mic'ing if you wish. The omnis are also flatter, in general, whcih means you don't have to worry about a specific frequency bump in your mic response doing unflattering things to your piano.

Finally, what is yuor budget for mics and a preamp? If you only have a few hundred total, sounds like your plan is about as good as any other. If you have more, more suggestions will follow.

Don't forget you will need a couple of good solid boom stands. (Not cheap quivering/vibrating crap). There are also in-piano bar mic mounting systems that I'm not personally familiar with. But leave room in your budget for some kind of stands.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

BTW, here's my theory on compression:

https://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?threadid=52937&highlight=chessrock+dog+leash

Nice explanation, but it would seem then that the threshold is analogous to the length of the leash, the Ratio is analogous to the elasticity, and there just isn't a good analogy for the attack/release time, unless you equate that to the response time of the person holding the leash.

About the DBX... I was hoping you would have some insight into which mics work well or poorly with it, or what types of recording it works well or poorly for. Sounds like it was more hit and miss, at least in your case. Oh well... I'm going to keep doing some research.

Any other suggestions?

 

[Bigus Dickus]

Ive read about that Apogee preamp, that may be pretty good in this situation,

Wow, just took a look at that. I suppose you're talking about the Mini-Me with dual mic pre's and A/D conversion in the portable chassis? Yeah, looks nice, but at $1300 it's a bit more than I was looking to spend (like 3 times more).

 

[Richard Monroe]

I can tell you this much, I use the 386 with a stereo pair of Oktava MC012's from the sound room on acoustic guitar routinely, and it works just fine. I have next to 0 experience mic'ing grand, and I suspect Littledog, Michael Jones, and Harvey Gerst will be able to give you plenty of insight into that. My only real experience with pianos is with a Wurlitzer console, and I expect that's a whole different animal.-Richie

 

[Bigus Dickus]

Thanks Richard. I'm beginning to think that the 386 is a good choice for the money, and it's nice to know that someone has used it with the MC012's and has been satisfied with the sound.

Harvey gave me a few placement and mic tips in that huge "polar pattern" thread, and I've used the search function and seen many informative posts from Michael and others as well. At this point, I'm fairly confident in my choice of mics (well, haven't narrowed it down to one specific mic yet, but the two or three I'm looking at should all do the job well). Looks like I'm getting closer on the pre/mixer front as well.

I was hoping to spend less than $500 on mic pre's or a mixer, but the DBX looks like a nice piece of equipment. The only thing a bit vague to me still is what I'll be giving up by using pre's instead of a mixer. I'm a bit uneasy about that.

 

[Richard Monroe]

Well, a mixer does just what it says, it mixes. Whether for live sound, or recording, it makes multiple signals into a single signal. It is also the most cost effective way to get a bunch of preamps without mortgaging your house, and of course, they are of variable quality, depending on the price point. Most home studios use a mixer for when you need a lot of pres, a situation that arises with drums in particular. Many mics require many channels. Then, most studios use a limited number of higher quality dedicated preamps for particularly critical sources, especially vocals and acoustic instruments.
For your stated mission, you lose nothing by having a 2 channel pre instead of a mixer, and in fact, the pre suits your purposes much better. You don't want to make a bunch of signals into one, you just want 2- left and right. If you want to mix those signals, say as in panning, you can do that in your computer once the tracks are on the hard drive. Note- "panning" is basically the process of placing a track on the left or right side of a stereo mix, or some combination of the 2, in a predetermined ratio. For most stereo recording, very little panning or mixing of any kind is required. What's important is to get the two mics in the right place, and get a signal as hot as possible without overloading any component in the signal chain, which causes unpleasant distortion called clipping. It's like pornography- you'll know it when you hear it.-Richie

 

[Bigus Dickus]

Thanks again. Sounds like the DBX is leading the pack so far as my purpose and price range is concerned.

 

[TexRoadkill]

Re: Re: Re: Mic Pre's/mixer for Oktava MC012...

I'm looking to record a grand, in a small room, with a pair of small diaphram condensor omni's or cardioid mics...

How small is that room? That could be your biggest challenge and omni's may be a bad choice.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Mic Pre's/mixer for Oktava MC012...

How small is that room? That could be your biggest challenge and omni's may be a bad choice.

Fairly small, 15 x 18 perhaps. I'm actually looking at cardioids now, not omni's... narrowed it down that far at least. I'm really leaning towards a matched pair of MC012's.

 

[littledog]

small room + distant mic'ing with omnis = bad
small room + close mic'ing with omnis = perfectly fine

You can also build a tent with sound blankets and the lid and put your mics inside and completely ignore the room. (As well as getting great isolation from other instruments or singing pianists.)


My grand piano mic'ed with Earthworks QTC's (omnis) completely blows away the same piano mic'ed with MC012's. While the QTC's are probably more than you want to spend, Earthworks also makes the TC30k's much cheaper. Or the Behringer 8000's are so cheap they are practically free - so you could always try them.

But, hey, some pretty smart folks have chosen to ignore my advice before. Maybe that's why they're pretty smart folks.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

Thanks for the advice. I may very well pick up a pair of the 8000's as well, just in case they work better. I think between a solid small diaphram cardioid and a decent omni, I should be able to get somewhat close to the sound I'm looking for... that is, if my piano doesn't sound like crap when recorded, which is a distint possibility.