Almost 200 years of neutrality is starting to show! I think they're getting a little tense.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

Unless, maybe... I'm the first person to think of it??? The Einstein of self-noise???

Since a microphones electronic self-noise is a random signal, how likely would a random "anti-noise" be to cancel it out even remotely...?

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.

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

Joel was referring to an "inverse" signal and "cancelling out" specifically, not denoising. And so was I...

inre: "the noise was more "musical" than the artefacts..."

now that's a good quote.

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...

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.

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...

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.

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.

Nice to see a thread going after 10 years! =)

QTC40s on orchestra:

Nicely done Christian, lots of presence....looks like a main pair , some extenders and a pair on woodwinds?


Ray

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.