The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Which pair of Earthworks for classical/orchestral stuff?
Old 21st December 2010 | Show parent
  #31
Lives for gear
 
PoxyMusic's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelPatrick ➡️
Is this a Swedish / Swiss dfegadoff?
Almost 200 years of neutrality is starting to show! I think they're getting a little tense.
Old 22nd December 2010 | Show parent
  #32
Lives for gear
 
jnorman's Avatar
 
3 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
cat5 is spot on with the recommendation for the AKG C480/ck62 omni. the C480 series is extremely nice, and i have used them interchangeably with DPA mics. very flat, open and smooth character.
Old 22nd December 2010 | Show parent
  #33
Lives for gear
 
sonare's Avatar
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnorman ➡️
i have used miniature capsule omnis on many occasions for classical work, and in this day of effective noise reduction software, taking care of bit of mic hiss just doesnt seem to be that much of a problem. and i frankly like the amazingly smooth off-axis response of small capsule omnis like the DPA 4061s and 4090s, and the earthworks QTC series.
But there is no free lunch. I use Algorithmix Noisefree and Izotope and there is an unavoidable loss of transients in HF when enough NR is dialed in to remove hiss or HVAC. There is no cookie-cutter method of removing any kind of noise-- by far the best strategy is to use a quiet room or record after midnight.

I suppose you could use 4060/61/90/91 and use the NR to "EQ" the 12kHz rise back down to normal, however.

Rich
Old 22nd December 2010 | Show parent
  #34
Lives for gear
 
boojum's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonare ➡️

<snip>

I suppose you could use 4060/61/90/91 and use the NR to "EQ" the 12kHz rise back down to normal, however.

Rich
Removing the grid from the 4060/4061 gives them a flat response. No need then for correction.

Last edited by boojum; 22nd December 2010 at 08:48 AM.. Reason: spelling
Old 22nd December 2010 | Show parent
  #35
Lives for gear
 
jnorman's Avatar
 
3 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
rich - i have found fairly effective to let the NR software do the sample, and then decrease the reduction effect by about 30-40%. the software is designed to attempt to reduce the sampled noise to something like -90dB, when in reality, we only need to get it down somewhere around -40 to -50dB. random loud intrusions have to be individually dealt with by other methods.
Old 22nd December 2010 | Show parent
  #36
Lives for gear
 
sonare's Avatar
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by boojum ➡️
Removing the grid form the 4060/4061 gives them a flat response. No need then for correction.
I was mistaken when I named the 4090/91-- they are flat. The 4060/61 however has a 12kHz rise-- and as was pointed out-- a little more noise than desirable thanks to the very small diameter capsule. Simply flattening that rise also helps to reduce the noise if objectionable. Personally I like the sound better flat. One can always remove the grill and accomplish the same thing.

Rich
Old 22nd December 2010 | Show parent
  #37
Lives for gear
 
didier.brest's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
The 4060 self-noise level is lower than the one from 4061. I am using a pair of 4060 for recording piano at home and did not notice any noise excess with respect to other condensers with larger caps.
Old 22nd December 2010 | Show parent
  #38
Lives for gear
 
Alexey Lukin's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonare ➡️
But there is no free lunch. I use Algorithmix Noisefree and Izotope and there is an unavoidable loss of transients in HF when enough NR is dialed in to remove hiss or HVAC.
If you are only seeking to remove HVAC noise, which is concentrated at lows and mids, use the RX Denoiser's curve control to specify which frequency areas need noise reduction. This way you'll be able to prevent any change to your HF transients.
Old 22nd December 2010 | Show parent
  #39
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Are the Earthworks mics really so full of magic that you're better off using them and removing the hiss after the fact, than using a quieter mic to begin with?
Old 22nd December 2010 | Show parent
  #40
Lives for gear
 
PoxyMusic's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris319 ➡️
Are the Earthworks mics really so full of magic that you're better off using them and removing the hiss after the fact, than using a quieter mic to begin with?
They're the "go to" mic for recording unicorns, I'll tell you what.


I think you already know the answer to your question.
Old 22nd December 2010 | Show parent
  #41
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris319 ➡️
Are the Earthworks mics really so full of magic that you're better off using them and removing the hiss after the fact, than using a quieter mic to begin with?
No magic, it's just that flat response in both the free field and diffuse field translates to a very natural sound in many situations. I would not hesitate to pay 5000 Euro or more for a pair of such omnis with a self noise figure of 10dBA. Unfortunately such a mic will not be around in my lifetime I suspect.


/Peter
Old 22nd December 2010 | Show parent
  #42
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by meltemi ➡️



Yes, but the compensation is electrical, not mechanical.
So what? Each method has advantages and disadvantages. And since the MKH system is EQ based anyway, it would seem a little silly not to offer it this way.

If you want a mechanically based system, then simply use the supplied option of the pressure rings.

Really, people getting hung up on THE one or A way to the exclusion of others is getting tiring.
Old 22nd December 2010 | Show parent
  #43
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by meltemi ➡️



Yes, but the compensation is electrical, not mechanical.
So what? Each method has advantages and disadvantages. And since the MKH system is EQ based anyway, it would seem a little silly not to offer it this way.

If you want a mechanically based system, then simply use the supplied option of the pressure rings. Or make a ball and stick it on the end of the mic, as I've also done.

Really, people getting hung up on THE one or A way to the exclusion of others of accomplishing things is getting tiring. Really tiring.
Old 22nd December 2010 | Show parent
  #44
Lives for gear
 
sonare's Avatar
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexey Lukin ➡️
If you are only seeking to remove HVAC noise, which is concentrated at lows and mids, use the RX Denoiser's curve control to specify which frequency areas need noise reduction. This way you'll be able to prevent any change to your HF transients.
I beg to differ-- HVAC is a broadband problem. Most of the energy may be LF and mid, but the "SSSS" is HF. and each system presents a different noise signature. I have also had situation of the same system with more than one "sound."

The transient thing is very subtle and may not be a big bother-- it depends on the program material.

Rich
Old 22nd December 2010 | Show parent
  #45
Gear Guru
 
joelpatterson's Avatar
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
My simple mind has a hard time with this here idea: since EW knows, explicitly, precisely, scientifically exactly WHAT the content and spectral value and yin and yang and zen of the "self-noise" is...

... well, why can't they somehow concoct an "inverse" of this that is fed into the signal as it leaves the mic and therefore cancel it out?

Is this like asking how tall a ladder would it take to reach the Moon?
Old 22nd December 2010 | Show parent
  #46
Lives for gear
 
boojum's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by joelpatterson ➡️
My simple mind has a hard time with this here idea: since EW knows, explicitly, precisely, scientifically exactly WHAT the content and spectral value and yin and yang and zen of the "self-noise" is...

... well, why can't they somehow concoct an "inverse" of this that is fed into the signal as it leaves the mic and therefore cancel it out?

Is this like asking how tall a ladder would it take to reach the Moon?
Joel, my simple mind says that if it were possible it would have been done. The product would be nearly perfect then. The same would hold true for the tiny DPA 4060/61.
Old 22nd December 2010 | Show parent
  #47
Gear Guru
 
joelpatterson's Avatar
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Unless, maybe... I'm the first person to think of it??? The Einstein of self-noise???
Old 22nd December 2010 | Show parent
  #48
Lives for gear
 
d_fu's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by joelpatterson ➡️
My simple mind has a hard time with this here idea: since EW knows, explicitly, precisely, scientifically exactly WHAT the content and spectral value and yin and yang and zen of the "self-noise" is...
... well, why can't they somehow concoct an "inverse" of this that is fed into the signal as it leaves the mic and therefore cancel it out?
Since a microphones electronic self-noise is a random signal, how likely would a random "anti-noise" be to cancel it out even remotely...?
Old 22nd December 2010 | Show parent
  #49
Lives for gear
 
Alexey Lukin's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonare ➡️
I beg to differ-- HVAC is a broadband problem. Most of the energy may be LF and mid, but the "SSSS" is HF.
Sure, I just meant that most audible HVAC noise is often at lows and mids, not at highs. And this curve helps you tailor the processing to certain frequency areas.
Old 22nd December 2010 | Show parent
  #50
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by d_fu ➡️
Since a microphones electronic self-noise is a random signal, how likely would a random "anti-noise" be to cancel it out even remotely...?
random noise but specific frequency spectrum of this noise.
Denoisers use this spectrum in the frequency domain to work.
But I never saw any denoiser totally free of artefacts when removing wide spectrum noises at low level.
And for me the noise was more "musical" than the artefacts...

JMM
Old 22nd December 2010 | Show parent
  #51
Lives for gear
 
d_fu's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathieujm ➡️
random noise but specific frequency spectrum of this noise.
Denoisers use this spectrum in the frequency domain to work.
Joel was referring to an "inverse" signal and "cancelling out" specifically, not denoising. And so was I...
Old 23rd December 2010 | Show parent
  #52
Lives for gear
 
jnorman's Avatar
 
3 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
inre: "the noise was more "musical" than the artefacts..."

now that's a good quote.
Old 23rd December 2010 | Show parent
  #53
Gear Guru
 
joelpatterson's Avatar
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by d_fu ➡️
Joel was referring to an "inverse" signal and "cancelling out" specifically, not denoising. And so was I...
Yes you were, and so was I... so maybe I don't need to be the Einstein but more the Nostradamus...

Here's the alternate approach-- take the audio signal hitting the mic-- then invert that to cancel it out-- then take what's left (le noise)-- then invert that, canceling IT out-- then bring back the audio signal again. Granted, this must all be done very quickly, and without anyone noticing...
Old 23rd December 2010 | Show parent
  #54
Lives for gear
 
didier.brest's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by joelpatterson ➡️
My simple mind has a hard time with this here idea: since EW knows, explicitly, precisely, scientifically exactly WHAT the content and spectral value and yin and yang and zen of the "self-noise" is...

... well, why can't they somehow concoct an "inverse" of this that is fed into the signal as it leaves the mic and therefore cancel it out?

Is this like asking how tall a ladder would it take to reach the Moon?
Yes.

The only a priori information you can get about noise is its mean distribution of power in frequency. By no way this is sufficient for removing exactly the random noise in a given take. It just allow for setting the parameters of 'denoising' methods implemented in plugins like X-noise etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joelpatterson ➡️
Here's the alternate approach-- take the audio signal hitting the mic-- then invert that to cancel it out-- then take what's left (le noise)-- then invert that, canceling IT out-- then bring back the audio signal again. Granted, this must all be done very quickly, and without anyone noticing...
You are assuming that one would be able to pick up the signal without noise...
Old 23rd December 2010 | Show parent
  #55
Gear Guru
 
joelpatterson's Avatar
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by didier.brest ➡️
... You are assuming that one would be able to pick up the signal without noise...
Good point. Probably would call for the old "microphone within a microphone" technique, preferably one without so much noise...
Old 4 weeks ago | Show parent
  #56
Gear Addict
 
Bob Amirian's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by JEGG ➡️
Among engineers who specialize in the recording of classical/art music, Earthworks microphones rarely surface in a discussion of microphones in common use.

Look toward DPA, Schoeps, Sennheiser, Neumann, and others.
Because they are noisy and midrangey when you place them above the orchestra. I own a pair of QTC50 and they sounded pretty bad with orchestra. They are AMAZING as drum overheads or a string quartet or acoustic guitars in a good room. The farther you place them from the source the more prominent will be their noise and midrange.
Old 4 weeks ago | Show parent
  #57
Gear Addict
 
Bob Amirian's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by bassjam ➡️
We have a pair of QTC50's they are amazing on orchestral sessions and are great for drum overheads!
I’ve never heard better mics for OH. Just simply perfect. Very fast with transients, accurate and punchy. Stereo field is great.
But for orchestra as main room mics placed on tall booms they always fail.. Too much noise and midrange, it doesn’t sound full, close nor true. No wonder they don’t get a good rap among engineers and large format orchestral studios. U87 beats them easily, not even mentioning DPA.
They’re very nice for a small string setup, though. Quartet, quintet, something that doesn’t require placing mics far.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #58
Lives for gear
 
NorseHorse's Avatar
Nice to see a thread going after 10 years! =)

QTC40s on orchestra:

Old 4 weeks ago | Show parent
  #59
Gear Nut
Nicely done Christian, lots of presence....looks like a main pair , some extenders and a pair on woodwinds?


Ray
Old 4 weeks ago | Show parent
  #60
Lives for gear
 
NorseHorse's Avatar
Thanks, Ray! Good eye!

Mains: Earthworks QTC40 AB
Flanks: Rode NT5
Winds: Mystery SDC on winds (possibly NT5s? 141s?)

There may be a couple other mics on stage, but I remember when I mixed this, it was almost entirely mains - hardly anything else. =) We've continued to refine and improve the placement/mix since that concert, but the Tchaik 5 video is still a reminder to how great those mics can be.
📝 Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 3 views: 2527
Avatar for DHD
DHD 8th May 2006
replies: 460 views: 84234
Avatar for John Willett
John Willett 29th June 2010
replies: 31 views: 5366
Avatar for CAGuy
CAGuy 27th December 2010
replies: 60 views: 6444
Avatar for patrikfoley
patrikfoley 28th January 2021
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearspace Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…

Forum Jump
Forum Jump