Would an old field mixer improve tascam dr-40?

[rha]

Hi there,
As per the title, I have a Tascam dr-40 that I was messing about with outdoors, and am wondering how to make a better attempt at the some of the recordings I tried.
One in particular was a pond full of mating toads - quite an auditory experience in person, much less so on the recording!
I used a couple of beringer b5 as omnis, dangled from a bridge, and an ancient sennheiser me80. With socks!
It seemed as if I had to put the gain way up to get any levels, but a lot of noise accompanied this.
Apart from perhaps some other mic, would an old (and hence relatively inexpensive) field mixer provide quieter amplification? I'd seen some SQN and Audio Developments mixers that were about affordable. Sensible, or not? I guess they might be useful indoors as well?!
Cheers, Rosco

[Hugh Robjohns]

The DR40s mic preamps certainly aren't the quietest, and I'd expect a decent professional location mixer like one of the SQNs to achieve lower noise from the mic inputs, and you can then send line level into the DR40.

I occasionally do the same thing for the same reasons, using a little 2-channel Sound Devices mic preamp with an Olympus mini-recorder.

[Tomás Mulcahy]

Check if the Zoom F6 is similar money. Or a used F4. They're pretty quiet.

[rha]

Thanks Hugh and Tomás!
I'll give the old SQN a go and see how it works. Should have the toads around again fairly soon! If i remember, I'll let you know how it went.

The Zoom boxes are still a bit more expensive secondhand, and right out as firsthand. Low budget and lo-fi at the moment. Daydreaming, it'd be cool to have something like those and also separate outs for each track, to mess about with the recorded sound without having to invoke the computer.

Cheers, Rosco

[Tomás Mulcahy]

Would love to hear what you get! I'm using a Zoom H2 (yes the old one) a Sony ECM 717 (quite a nice mic) and a parabolic. The Zoom is the weak link, it has a whine.

[Arpangel]

The most important thing to get right first, is the microphone, the B5’s are noisy, period. For work like this, you need something that will work quietly, at high gain.
Then look at your recorder, these days there are very good recorders with built in mic amps and phantom, for very reasonable prices.

[rha]

The most important thing to get right first, is the microphone...

Hi Arpangel - yeah, I did imagine that the mics would become another area to attend to! I got the b5s because they were, ahem, inexpensive, and also so I could hear the differences between the pickup patterns.

Any mics you can think of that might be a better replacement, off the top of your head? Budget is low and I don't mind second hand. Rode nt5? That's probably as much as can be justified at the moment. I need to do some work in interpreting mic specifications, once some other mildly technical projects are under control.

Also, I left the 'x' off the recorder name, it's a DR40x, not sure if that makes a difference!

[Mike Stranks]

The NT5s are very good value for money and often recommended here.

They have a big plus-point in that Rode also make omni caps for them.

If budget is tight I'd urge a checkout of these:

http://www.lineaudio.se/CM4.html

Available in the UK here:

https://www.pinknoise-systems.co.uk/lin ... phone.html

[Arpangel]

As Mike says, NT5’s are pretty good, you’re in quite a demanding area though, that does benefit from good, quiet mic's.
Then, once you’ve got those sorted out, you’ll want wind protection, which can cost more than some mics, it’s an expensive business.
Just look to the future, and try and aim for better mics, in the meantime, it’s not impossible to get good results with budget equipment, I’ve heard some great stuff done with the built in mic's on handy recorders.

[Tomás Mulcahy]

The NT5s are very good value for money and often recommended here.

They have a big plus-point in that Rode also make omni caps for them.

If budget is tight I'd urge a checkout of these:

http://www.lineaudio.se/CM4.html

Available in the UK here:

https://www.pinknoise-systems.co.uk/lin ... phone.html

Yes the Rodes are nice. A tad coloured, but in a nice way. I prefer them to Neumann KM184. Both are student proof- we've had ours since 2004. A few dents, but working perfectly!

Those Line Audio mics have amazing specs! Have you used them Mike? I need those.

[Mike Stranks]

Those Line Audio mics have amazing specs! Have you used them Mike? I need those.

I haven't used the CM4s; I had the - now discontinued - CM3s. James P has some CM4s I think.

I have their omni siblings - the OM1 - which I think sound superb in AB config for choirs and orchestras. I used them a few times with the CM3s in a four-mic Faulkner array positioned immediately behind the conductor. Excellent!

All superb mics which are ultra-flat and uncoloured. I've heard of people sending them back because they're 'flat and uninspiring'... obviously used to the somewhat hyped sound that is all-too-common at the more budget end of the small-capacitor market.

[James Perrett]

Those Line Audio mics have amazing specs! Have you used them Mike? I need those.

I haven't used the CM4s; I had the - now discontinued - CM3s. James P has some CM4s I think.

I have CM3's like you Mike. They're very nice mics and not too long so they fit into tight spaces.

[Hugh Robjohns]

Those Line Audio mics have amazing specs!

They are certainly good value mics which deliver pleasingly high-quality sound. The output level is low compared to most electret (around 8mV/Pa), but the self-noise figure is surprisingly good for mics of this type and size (16-18dBA), and they are remarkably flat and neutral.

Note that the OM1 omni is equalised for the nearfield rather than the diffuse field, so you may well need to boost the HF if using as a distant main array rather than a close mic.

And the CM4 leans towards being a hypo-cardioid pattern, with less rear rejection than might be expected of a cardioid. It's not usually a problem, but definitely worth being aware of.

[rha]

The NT5s ...

Hi Mike - thanks for that, I've noted the Line Audio name, seems good vfm!

You do some recording of the sounds of nature I think? Would these mics be good for the quieter animals - the toads were prominent against the background noise of general wind in trees, distant road and sea, but were swamped by noise in the recording whereas birds several times distant came through much louder, for comparison. I think there was a lot of low frequency noise.

In my quick googling a youtube channel, of maybe a voice actor, demoing these mics and others turned up. Channel is: ppm6.tv
May be useful for anyone looking for a quick comparison?

[rha]

... it’s an expensive business.

This is not good news!

But, it's just for fun and I'll be happy with dropping the noise enough that the sound can be repurposed. Although, I can see how people could be driven to get the best sound possible and investing lots of time and money into it. Something mesmerising about the translocated (?) sound.

[rha]

Note that the OM1 omni is equalised for the nearfield rather than the diffuse field, so you may well need to boost the HF if using as a distant main array rather than a close mic.

Apologies, this is probably a dodgy question... Does this mean that the reproduction of relatively distant sounds will differ to that of closer ones? Taking the toad pond example, say there are dozens in a pond 10m by 5m, distributed evenly, would those 5m away sound markedly different than those less than a meter away. Using a pair of mics?

[Arpangel]

Something mesmerising about the translocated (?) sound.

Yes, there is, it’s a very powerful thing to use, and often, it’s the imperfections, the noise, that not only give it context, and contrast to what’s around it, but it also increase the "mesmerisation"

[Drew Stephenson]

Note that the OM1 omni is equalised for the nearfield rather than the diffuse field, so you may well need to boost the HF if using as a distant main array rather than a close mic.

Apologies, this is probably a dodgy question... Does this mean that the reproduction of relatively distant sounds will differ to that of closer ones? Taking the toad pond example, say there are dozens in a pond 10m by 5m, distributed evenly, would those 5m away sound markedly different than those less than a meter away. Using a pair of mics?

Nope, the frequency response of the mic is consistent within itself, it's just whether it's been designed to work close to the source or further away.

[Wonks]

High frequencies are attenuated by air more than low frequencies, so the further away the mic is from the source, the duller the sound becomes. Within a few feet, you could assume the sound is ‘flat’, but at 50 feet away, you are loosing some treble.

So you can use mics with a boosted treble response to achieve a ‘flatter’ sound when recording from further away, though increased ambient noise and reverb pickup will still give a different timbre and feel to the sound.

As Drew says, the overall sound level balance between near and far toads will remain the same, but the choice of mic will make a difference as to how much the treble is altered. A flat response mic will sound more natural if used close-up than one with a presence boost. If recording further away, the flat response mic will sound like you are recording from further away, whilst a presence-boosted mic will sound like you are recording from a closer distance, albeit with more natural ambience.

If detailing the toad noise is the main focus of the recording, then it’s up to you to decide what sounds best, but if you were recording it as a foley sound as background noise for a film scene, then the flat response mics would be your choice.

[Mike Stranks]

The NT5s ...

Hi Mike - thanks for that, I've noted the Line Audio name, seems good vfm!

You do some recording of the sounds of nature I think? Would these mics be good for the quieter animals - the toads were prominent against the background noise of general wind in trees, distant road and sea, but were swamped by noise in the recording whereas birds several times distant came through much louder, for comparison. I think there was a lot of low frequency noise.

In my quick googling a youtube channel, of maybe a voice actor, demoing these mics and others turned up. Channel is: ppm6.tv
May be useful for anyone looking for a quick comparison?

A few things to say...

I recommended the CM4s on the assumption that you wanted to stay with two microphones and that consequently you'd want small and compact.

However, if starting with a completely 'blank sheet' then I wouldn't necessarily go down the two mics route.

The first consideration is whether you want stereo or mono 'captures'. I've recorded in both stereo and mono using either a stereo microphone or a mono shotgun mic.

(At this point I should point out that I'll be concentrating on more 'budget' and simpler options and thus not looking at things like two mics/MS encoding and decoding options.)

For stereo work I used a Rode NT4, at first with a Rode 'Dead Kitten' and then in a Rode Blimp. This was into a Zoom F4, but it would work just as well into something like your Tascam. Superlux also make some stero mics, but I can't vouch for their S/N ratio or self-noise performance... I found the NT4 to be excellent.

For mono work I used the Rode NTG4+ and also into the F4. That was also mounted in the Rode Blimp. But there are numerous mono shotgun mics available at all price points - the Thomann site is as good as any for reference, but check prices elsewhere - Thomann are not always the cheapest.

There are also stereo shotgun mics available - often working on MS principles - but my only brief perusals of those have indicated that unless you pay a lot they can be noisy.

If I was starting over I'd almost certainly go for for the new Zoom F3, good preamps and huge potential dynamic range, probably still coupled with a Rode NT4... it really was an excellent mic.

But it's all your choice bearing in mind your budget, weight/portability considerations and the ease/cost of getting good wind noise attenuation... this can't be done effectively on the cheap for anything but the gentlest of breezes.

Very high level, but I hope it's of some use.

[Hugh Robjohns]

Does this mean that the reproduction of relatively distant sounds will differ to that of closer ones? Taking the toad pond example, say there are dozens in a pond 10m by 5m, distributed evenly, would those 5m away sound markedly different than those less than a meter away. Using a pair of mics?

Sorry to be late answering this one.

My comment about the equalisation of the OM1 was more intended for those who might consider it for recording choirs and the like, as was mentioned in its recommendation.

The omni equalisation options are related to the behaviour of sound in different conditions.

For sounds arriving directly on axis in a non-reverberant environment, there is a pressure buildup in front of the diaphragm as the wavelength approaches the size of the diaphragm, typically reaching a peak of about 10dB at 16kHz.

However, if the sound source is off to the side of the mic at 90 degrees, there is no pressure buildup, and thus no HF peak, at all. Similarly, in a wholly reverberant space (the so-called 'diffuse field'), where sound arrives from all directions with random angles of incidence, there is no pressure build up.

Consequently, omni mic are designed to offer a flat frequency response for close, on-axis sources in a non-reverberant environment (which means they need a compensatory HF cut), or they are designed to offer a flat response in a diffuse environment (which means they will exhibit this huge HF peak if used close-up).

The OM1 is designed for use in the near field, giving a flat response to sources within 1m. That means that if used in a diffuse field, it will tend to sound dull and lacking in HF.

I presume your open-air frog situation is essentially a non-reverberant environment, with mostly direct sound, so a free-field response is probably the most appropriate... however, as has been said above, HF is lost with distance anyway so you may still need to add a little HF to make the recording sound as bright and clear as the source frog noises!

[rha]

Thanks, all, for the notes. Will have to come back to it later as am in the middle of stuff at the moment, but some interesting stuff for me to think about.
Cheers, Rosco

[rha]

A few things to say...

I recommended the CM4s on the assumption that you wanted to stay with two microphones and that consequently you'd want small and compact.

However, if starting with a completely 'blank sheet' then I wouldn't necessarily go down the two mics route.

Thanks, Mike, for taking the time to put that down. I hadn't thought about a dedicated stereo mic, but I can see how that would be better for, amongst other things, getting into a blimp, nice and compact. But, I think I'd prefer two separate mics that can be used independently in other circumstances.

Ease of use versus adaptability, frustrating to think about! From the SoS review, the NT4 is essentially the same as the NT5, sound wise. I have noted matched pairs having sold at auction for under two ton, several times, recently.

That long Rode mic looks really good, thanks, something for the future perhaps.

Your and Arpangel's warnings about the difficulty of doing this to low cost have been noted, expectations have been adjusted! I can't envision a lot of field recording in future, more a few specific things I'd like to capture, and maybe recording friends if they'll let me. There's a terrific echo in the hills nearby, the arrangement gives a long delay to the first reply, then several in a quicker but uneven succession. We'll see how that goes...

High frequencies are attenuated by air more than low frequencies, so the further away the mic is from the source, the duller the sound becomes. Within a few feet, you could assume the sound is ‘flat’, but at 50 feet away, you are loosing some treble.

Thanks Wonks - It's becoming a bit clearer.

The image that popped to mind was an analogy to a telephoto lens, the visual compression that they create.

Comparative recordings would be the way to find out, I guess. It's hard to know what I want from it, at the moment, just that it sounds better than last time! Like getting a photo exposed properly, then, after that, to taste.

The omni equalisation options are related to the behaviour of sound in different conditions.

Ok, so I lost a few hours there thinking about this and doing a bit of reading. Skimming, more appropriately... Once I was able to refine the search terms a bit, an old forum thread popped up:
https://www.soundonsound.com/forum/view ... hp?t=47500

Which helped. I'll try to experiment with the orientation of the mics, see how higher frequencies are affected, as you mentioned in that thread.

Although I have already been hugely disappointed to discover that omni mics are not really that, and that the sound can change a lot as the mic is pointed at greater angles to the sound. Drastic alteration to the sound of the sea, for example. I perhaps had unrealistic expectations from the word 'omni'! Also, probably, cheap mics.

... frog noises ...

Definitely toads! I mean, i'm not bothered, but they might be!

Anyway, to give my personal findings on the topic question, I have today tried an old SQN mixer into the Tascam DR40x.
SQN -> Tascam
Two Beringer b5s pointed at a dripping tap, about two and half feet away. Got as best a signal on the SQN as I could (as much noise as I could tolerate), about 7 or 8 on the channels and 0 on the master. Monitored on the SQN. Output at mic level. The Tascam record level was set at 50. No good reason for choosing that value - it seemed above that the noise increased quickly above that, when monitoring on the Tascam.
Tascam direct.
Gain was set to looslely match the level in the headphones that was heard previously. Which meant it was pretty much maxed out.

Took the files into Audacity and played them back. I don't really know how to work Audacity. Now, if I haven't messed up too badly, for the same peak levels (-25 to -20, say) the mixer->recorder has 15-20dB less noise (-55 to -50, ish, versus -37 to -32, lot of flickering). Just looking at the waveform, there's a huge difference. It's possible to see the peaks of the water dripping, for one. So that seems like a victory?

[Hugh Robjohns]

You'd probably find its even quieter if you take a line level from the sqn into the recorder...

[rha]

You'd probably find its even quieter if you take a line level from the sqn into the recorder...

Next on the list! Will have to wait until next week, unfortunately. You're getting my expectation up!