Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by MrJoshua

  1. The 201 does have a little more top end than the 200, but I don't find either of them to be particularly prone to sibilance. But as I think about it, I'm not sure I've used either of them with any sibilance-prone singers up to this point. They're both good microphones, though.
  2. Nice. Enjoying the mic so far, then? I used one of the new 101fet SDCs on an acoustic part the other day and it sounded very good. Of course, part of that was due to the fact that it was a good player with a Martin, but I like to think the mic helped...
  3. David and the folks at Mojave have offered to bring their mikes by for me to have a listen to here in my studio - I'm going to have to take them up on that one of these days... I've only heard them at trade shows, but from what I could tell there, they sounded very good. When you get the chance please do. I don't know how they compare to vintage Neumann mics or anything like that, but they certainly match up well with other offerings in the price range ... or above.
  4. I'm really excited. I haven't had a New Mic Day in awhile and this is the most expensive one I've ever purchased, so I'm a bit nervous. I think you'll like it. I don't have a ton of expensive mics but I have a couple around the four-figure mark (a Microtech-Gefell MT-71S and a BLUE Woodpecker), and the Mojave mics compare well with either of them. They're solid.
  5. It's actually coming from Alabama! Well it isn't mine!
  6. Well, I just won a used one (201-fet) off Ebay for $500. I figure if I don't like it I can probably flip it again for close to that, right? Sounds like a plan.
  7. I just looked up the 201 on Sweetwater. Totally tempted, especially since it works better for sibilant voices (ie- ME). If you're anywhere near north Alabama, you're welcome to come by and try mine out before you purchase one.
  8. I've read a review of the MA-200. Any mic that has Royer influence sounds like a winner to me. The only thing I thought would be an issue is the Chinese thing, but my guess is Royer wouldn't associate with crap quality stuff so... yeah! If I didn't know that the capsules were made in China (I'm not sure about the rest of the mic) I certainly would never be able to guess from using it. It's a solid microphone.
  9. I have to say that I really like these microphones. I've had an MA-200 (their tube-based large diaphragm condensor) for a couple of months now it's just a solid mic. Nice, full-bodied sound and the top end manages to be present without sounding brittle or harsh. It has rapidly become the first mic I reach for with most singers. Now, that's probably not as impressive as it would be if I had a bigger mic collection, but still. I like it so much that I decided to give their solid-state version, the MA-201fet, a try. I've only had a chance to use it on a couple of demo session so far, but it has a lot of the same characteristics I like so much about the MA-200. It has a good presence in the lower mids and a little less high end than the 200. It responds well to EQ. So far I've used it on vocals and drum overhead. Next I'm considering trying it on kick, and I'd like to hear how it sounds on acoustic guitar, too. I'm impressed enough with the 200 and 201, though, that I've ordered a pair of the MA-101fet small diaphragm condensors. Right now my small-diaphragm choices are a pair of Rode NT5 mics and a pair of AKG C430 mics. I keep the AKGs in the live rig to use as drum mics when they're needed - they have a really boosted top end and while they can sound good on drums that's not really what I'm looking for out of my recordings right now. So really the Rodes are my go-to SDCs. It will be interesting to see if the Mojave mics can change my mind there. And with that my tax refund is spent, so it'll probably be a little while before I order anything else for the studio, barring some breakage or maintenance costs. Anyway, I just thought I'd share my thoughts. Has anyone else used these mics? I know they've come up in discussion here, especially the MA-200, but I haven't read anything here about the 101fet as far as I remember. The 201 doesn't seem to get a ton of press either, but it's a pretty darn good choice for a large-diaphragm cardioid condensor. Especially considering that it costs under $700.
  10. Are you running out of processing power? If you are, consider converting the files to 48 or 44.1kHz. If not, why bother?
  11. I have a pair of A7s with a Sub 8, and I keep them on different connections from my Mackie "Big Knob" so I can turn the sub on and off at will. The A7s have plenty of low end 95% of the time, I'd say. I'll turn the sub on to make sure nothing weird is happening at the low-low end, but most of my mixing takes place with it turned off. It does sound really good once you take the time to dial it in, though. But my room needs more bass trapping (a LOT) and having the sub on tends to exaggerate the problems.
  12. They had an 18 year old friend make the purchase. This criminal may very well have done the same thing. The 18-year-old then sold or gave those guns to the younger kids, without the consent of their parents. At that point it rather ceases to be a legal transaction, no? If I buy a rifle, well and good. If I then sell that rifle to a felon, it's no longer a "legally-purchased" rifle. edit: man. I have GOT to start reading the whole thread before I reply. nothing to see here. move along, folks...
  13. At the risk of offending, that is such a frustrating cop out of an answer. :/ I promise you, it isn't as frustrating as someone comparing an apple to an orange as a method of deciding whether pears are better than bananas, which is essentially what you're doing here. Were you hitting the cymbal in exactly the same spot with exactly the same force and holding the stick exactly the same way on each take? Of course not. But each of these things can have exactly the sort of effect you were describing as the difference between these two "sample rates". Hit it harder, get a brighter ping with more ringing. Hit it a little higher toward the bell, get a bright sound with less ringing and lower volume. And so on and so forth. It's good that you hear a difference. I'm not arguing that there's no difference. But drawing a conclusion based on a test like this is a good way to fool oneself into believing something that may not be true.
  14. What differences exist would more likely be caused by the performances being different as opposed to the sample rates being different.
  15. Yeah, that seems to be the general consensus by most of us. Well, to an extent. With a properly-designed, well-implemented filter you don't really gain much by going to 96kHz. Even if I were going to use a higher sample rate (and I don't - I still use 44.1kHz) I'd still go with 88.2kHz as a maximum. That gets you WELL above the point at which a low-pass antialiasing filter should be fairly easily designed and built, aliasing should be reduced to the point that it essentially ceases to be a problem, and any objections over frequency response or fidelity at that point are just sheer bloody-mindedness. Any higher than that and you're just making it harder on your computer without gaining much of anything.
  16. This will be the last time I bump the thread, honest! I really do want to see AN's oscilloscope results, though. I'm very curious as to how they turned out.
  17. Well, the problem with HarBal (for the sake of THIS discussion, anyway) is that we're sampling again... I have an old oscilloscope around, but it doesn't work right. I really ought to tear that thing apart and try to fix it.
  18. Not to dredge up an old thread, but I really am curious as to how those scope readings came out. I need to get myself a decent scope.
  19. Well, I'm not an expert in signal processing - a lot of my knowledge came from college courses I took years ago, and more of it is from me wanting to be more educated about this as it relates to music. Quite a bit of what I've said in this thread has been gleaned from textbooks. So, as with anything you read on the Internet, it should be taken with a grain of salt - I might think I know what I'm talking about, and sometimes I'll even be right, but any subject you're really interested in should be pursued through proper educational channels. That said... Aliasing occurs when you have frequency content in your signal above the Nyquist restriction. In other words, if you're sampling at 44.1kHz and you have some 24kHz content in the signal you're sampling, you're going to get some aliasing. Now, while I have a loose understanding of this, I'm not entirely confident that I understand it well enough to actually try explaining it in coherent fashion. I'll give it a shot, but if it all goes down in flames, don't say I didn't warn you. A sampled signal shows up in the frequency domain as a repeating function. Let's say you record a bass note on the A string, open A, 55Hz fundamental. You'll have harmonics present at (for the purposes of this not-very-realistic example) 110Hz, 220Hz, 440Hz, etc... Putting a single sample of that note on a graph in the frequency domain would show spikes at 55Hz, 110Hz, 220Hz, 440Hz, and anywhere else that the signal had strength. But more than that, if you were sampling (for some crazy reason) at 2kHz, then you'd also show spikes at 2055Hz, 2110Hz, 2220Hz, 2440Hz, and so on. It shows up as a periodic function, you see, even in the frequency domain. Now, unfortunately, bass contains harmonics well above 1kHz, so our sampling rate of 2kHz is going to be a real problem. You see, not only is a 2kHz sampling rate not going to accurately capture frequencies above 1kHz, but we have another problem. It's going to capture those frequencies inaccurately, but they'll still be there, and it's going to make a mess. Because now we also have content at 1100Hz, and 2200Hz ... and that 2200Hz signal is going to be overlapping that 2220Hz signal most likely that we talked about above. Even worse, there will be interference from the repeating signal overlapping our original period - our 2200Hz signal is going to show up as an overlap back in our audible frequency range! So we've really messed up here, because we've really made our signal capture highly inaccurate. And it's going to show up as noise and weirdness when we try to convert back to analog. How do you combat this? Two ways. First, we use a low-pass filter (also referred to in this application as an anti-aliasing filter) BEFORE we sample the signal. You'll have noticed several references to these filters throughout this thread. The point of the filter is to keep inaudible high-frequency content from getting into your signal and causing sampling inaccuracies that will muck up your audible content. One problem (as you mention) is that there are no perfect filters. We can reduce the ultrasonic stuff enough that it isn't much of a problem, but we can't make it go away entirely. Also, steep filters can cause "ringing" or strange artifacts. Filter design is a branch of engineering I haven't delved into very deeply, and I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on it. Second, we sample at a rate a high enough rate to help avoid the issue. That does NOT mean that a higher rate will always be better - you reach a point where it's as good as it's going to get, really. If we were to sample right at 40kHz, then we'd have issues with any noise above 20kHz (audible or not) getting into our systems and mucking up our audible samples due to aliasing. That's one reason why we sample at 44.1kHz or higher - it's easier to design the filters to keep stuff above 20kHz out of our systems and avoid aliasing because we have a little room there to work with. A little 22kHz inaudible noise isn't going to wreck our recording because it's still under our Nyquist limit, and above that our filters should be keeping everything knocked down low enough to minimize the problem. I honestly believe that some converters MIGHT sound better at higher sampling rates, but that's NOT because of the conversion being more accurate, the higher sampling rate capturing more detail and space, or any of that stuff. It's because their filters aren't designed properly to prevent aliasing when you record at 44.1 or even sometimes 48kHz, so you still wind up with some ultrasonic junk in the samples that turns into noise and funkiness in the signal (and not the good P-Funk kind of funkiness; the kind that smells bad). In the end, the point is to make music. If you feel like you make better music at 96kHz sampling rates, or by moving your keys over to your other pocket when you play a solo, or with a lava lamp setting the mood and the overhead lights off, then DO IT if you're willing to take the hit on the number of plugins and such you can use - it's going to be a lot harder on your computer. I have no issue with people doing whatever they think it takes to make good music. After all, that's what it's all about. I just enjoy conversations like this because they tend to teach me something, whether through someone else explaining something I didn't know or through forcing me to delve into a textbook and learn something so I can explain it without making a fool of myself (or at least, no more of one than normal). edit: I hope I didn't mess that up too badly. It's a LOT easier to see with some graphs and a little calculus than it is to explain with text.
  20. I'm still looking forward to seeing his oscilloscope results, because I just can't figure out what he's talking about when he says "parallel waveforms". Because there pretty much has to be only one waveform. How would you display more than one waveform on an oscilloscope anyway, unless you were using multiple test leads and what sense would that make? So I just don't know what he's saying. So I'm hoping to clarify that anyway. I don't mind people disagreeing with me. I just don't like it when we can't get our terminology on the same page, and I feel like that's happening here.
  21. What would be nice is 64 bit 320khz sampling. That would theoretically be better then anything ever. It would also allow vastly higher level of detail. I can here a difference bwetween 24/48 and 24/96 and even 16/44 and 16 at various sampling rates. . but beyond that it becomes a moot difference. All right, here's where I have to point out yet again that there's absolutely no point to using 320 kHz sampling, at all. Any differences you hear between 24/48 and 24/96 are purely due to low-pass filter design, not because of the sampling rate. A properly-designed and well-implemented filter will allow a converter to capture every bit of the audible detail at 44.1kHz that it will at any higher sampling frequency.
  22. I will borrow the big scope this weekend and get out the record player. I will also do a audio capture of the same source on digital playback. I will post up the results. I would appreciate it, because unless I'm much mistaken you should be seeing the same thing on either one. Now, if the digital audio has been "digitally remastered" then there may be differences there, but if it's a straight conversion to digital it should be the same. It will be interesting to see the results. edit: If you have the time, it would also be interesting to see what you would get if you recorded some audio from your record player through a decent converter at 44.1kHz/24-bit, then played back that recording through the scope. That way you know you're not getting any differences through CD remastering or anything like that. Especially useful would be if you could record the same pass of the record as you were monitoring on the scope, so we'll see the exact same pass of the exact same record, if you see what I'm getting out. Just to eliminate as many variables as possible. But I know that would be time-consuming, so if you can't don't worry about it. Just a thought.
  23. and there is the diferenece between analog and digital. Analog represent all waves that may exist simultanoeusly unless they overlap. Whereas digital must SUM the waves into distinct events. Also they do come in sucession. Grab a osicliscope and have a look. You will find more wav patterns in a good analog record then in a digital one.where you will see them is in the parrelel. You won't see parrelel waves in a digital recording. Parallel waves? You're telling me that you're seeing multiple waveforms on a oscilloscope screen?
  24. they can sum signals.Correct, what they can't do is play back 2 simultaneously different signals. Hence the difference between analog and digital. I guess I'm still not following you. If they can sum signals, why would they need to play back two simultaneous different signals? Why not just sum them together and play the one resulting signal?
  25. thats exactly what it is doing. Its just doing it very very very fast. So fast that it is inaudable. But this is where analog wins out. analog can have multple sinusoidial waves simultanoeusly but the caveat is that when waves overlap that one will moentarily cancel the other. This is why analog seems to GEL better. I'm pretty sure that's inaccurate. I mean, think about it. If it worked that way you'd be unable to mix anything larger than, say, a dozen tracks without running into some pretty serious problems. You certainly wouldn't be able to mix sessions with a hundred-and-some-odd tracks like you see in some places. It just doesn't make sense. Your DAW software adds the waves together digitally and then sends the resulting waveform data to the DA converter, which converts it into one single analog waveform. It doesn't switch back and forth between them. It wouldn't make sense. Your computer is basically a big adding machine, and summing waves together is exactly what it's good at - addition.
  • Create New...