Hmmm. . . my remark about Naiant must have stepped on msh's toes. I did not know that
www.naiant.com is listed as msh's homepage when I did that. Nor did I mean to dis Naiant's mics, but just point out that very big, old and experienced companies suggest cardioid mics for violin. They may be models that have switchable patterns, but, for example AKG specifically says to use a cardioid. See the link I posted above.
On the contrary, I was enjoying that fact that you didn't know
And I generally don't discuss my products here. Thus, I specifically did not make *any* microphone recommendations, for the simple reason that I don't know, it really depends on the source, the mic, and the desired result. The 414 could be a very good recommendation.
However, I will always take issue with statements of opinion, especially based on limited experience, when they clearly conflict with evidence-based analysis.
So let's move on that front, and ignore the discussion of any particular model of microphone.
Well, that is me. But the op said, originally $300 to $500 (not $100 as msh posted above)
I believe that is a total budget, and he followed up with a post asking for a $100 mic. A pair of 414s is close to $2K, I believe.
As for what is preposterous, lets try It is not settled that 44.1KHz/16 bit actually achieves anywhere near the theoretical potential in response and dynamic range.
A modern 16 bit system should attain slightly less than 90dB dynamic range. Nearly any 24 bit system can easily exceed that, up to even 130dB for the really high end stuff.
44.1kHz does not *quite* achieve flat response up to 20kHz. There is a slight rolloff of frequencies above 16kHz, due to filter behavior. This is mostly gone when using 48kHz, and totally gone by 64kHz. Any higher rate adds no audible benefit, and rates above 96kHz actually may *decrease* sample accuracy.
This is because the data rate is based upon a much high true sample rate, usually 3mHz or so. The bit depth at that rate is quite small, 1 or 2 or 4 bits. That is the true sample rate; the data rate is constructed from that stream. Thus, any individual sample at 192kHz is constructed from less information than a sample at 96kHz. Therefore, in going to the higher rate, you lose accuracy in the audible spectrum in exchange for frequency response that you can't hear and your system cannot accurately reproduce.
But it does have demonstrable problems with phase shift and inaccurate reproduction of higher frequencies.
I discussed frequency response above; the comment about phase shift is incorrect; I can post a link if you need, but you can also verify that experimentally yourself. It is based on a faulty assumption about the function of the antialiasing filter, or perhaps the operation of very early filters that were superseded more than 20 years ago.
Further, any argument supporting the use of a 44.1KHz sampling rate, and based on Nyquist's Theorem of Mediocrity (Nyquist-Shannon, actually) is based on the assumption that the range of human hearing is 20Hz to 20KHz. Period. At most. But human hearing does not hit a wall at 20KHz, rather it rolls off. We are perfectly capable of sensing harmonics out to, and possibly beyond 27KHz, as some speaker manufacturers have learned the hard way when changing fabric dome tweeters for aluminum domes which had resonance peaks out at 27KHz. Which, if you believe 44.1KHZ sampling to be adequate, should be beyond anyone's ability to perceive.
Let's stipulate that. You have still not given me an argument to use 192kHz. Yes, I said 44.1kHz was adequate, not perfect. 64kHz would remove such worries, and 96kHz would completely address them.
At the same time, you have posted a very compelling argument, if correct, to use equipment that is capable of accurately reproducing ultrasonic frequencies. Which has more accurate ultrahigh frequency response; a large diaphragm cardioid condenser, or a small-diaphragm pressure omnidirectional microphone?
You are also giving an excellent argument not to use a tape recorder that does not have useful response 18kHz . . . such as a low-speed unit like the Revox.
As for dynamic range, really for solo violin you don't need much. That is good news for the Revox, which can only manage about 66dB with Dolby (wanna talk about what that does to high frequencies?). Figure on room noise at 20dBSPL in a really quiet room (not realistic for a home setting), and max SPL at 3' of 100dBSPl (which I'd guess is way high, but let's be conservative). So there is no need for much more than 80dB of dynamic range. Even the low-end 24 bit converters manage 105dB or so.
This guy, the OP, is a classical musician. My posts are only thoughts and ideas, so are not "preposterous," at least not if you really know the meaning of that word. They are based on the assumption that he has at least highly trained hearing, as do the juries to which he will be sending his CDs. I will admit that final judgements will probably be made in person, from among persons selected at first by gross evaluation from CDs. However, these are not people who routinely record or listen to highly compressed pop or rock music. Rather they probably can reliably tell the difference between a Strad and a Del Gesu in a double-blind AB comparision, from recordings. Some probably could tell the difference between the Dushkin Del Gesu and the Ysaye Del Gesu. Blindfolded.
Mmm hmm. I see in your later posts you attribute that ability to a musician's ability to hear above 20kHz. You will need to reconcile that with recent studies done in the UK where hearing protection may be mandated for classical musicians, since the SPLs experienced in your work environment are more than sufficient to lead to hearing loss. In fact, I would bet my 8 year old daughter could completely embarrass you in a high-frequency hearing test (as she can with me).
But she cannot describe the sonic characteristics of microphones as well as I can, because as you note she is untrained. And she isn't a very good violin player, even after three years of lessons, so I expect your characterization of instrumental tonal qualities is vastly better. So despite our aged hearing, we are superior at those tasks . . . because we are making evaluations of material that is entirely within the audible range.
I used to own headphone amps etc but I've had to sell most of my gear. I used to build my own DIY headphone amps and used to also own a pair of Sennheiser HD600, but in the end the Etys were just more honest and multi-purpose so those were the ones I ended up keeping for good. In any case I know a little bit about what it takes to build a decent "audiophile" quality rig.
and I use an M-Audio firewire solo interface. Recently, my newer recordings sound better due to extensive EQ and proper reverb, levels, etc. Yup, for the upcoming CD I used the Schoepps that the Cleveland Orchestra owns.
Having good skills with eq, reverb, editing, automation, etc comes in handy. I recently did an excerpt where I pushed a loud note back a bit. On my upcoming CD, I played a great solo first take but messed up one note. Auto-tune saved it.
There is a LOT you can do to an audition tape with todays technology. You can visually look at the Midsummer NIghts dream Scherzo to see if it is even, draw in fades, raise accented notes, on and on.