What reasonably priced audio interfaces (usb, usb2, or firewire) have> the most gain-boosting mic preamps?>

Back Story:>

I have just bought a Studio Projects LSD2 microphone. (It's a stereo> microphone with adjustable angle between 2 vertically coincident> condenser elements.) My plan is to use it to record live concerts using> mid-side or blumlein techniques. I had planned to get a firewire or USB> audio interface with microphone preamps and go mobile with my iBook for> recording.>

The problem I have run into is that the audio interfaces I've tried> can't give me enough gain to get anything out of this microphone for> room recording. In order to get half-decent levels I have to crank the> gain up to at least 90%. Somewhere around 85% gain the interfaces I've> tried produce a lot of noise, and some high-pitched hum as well.>

I've tested the mic on an old and bulky analog Yamaha mixing board that> does phantom power. It works fine, and the board's gain knob only needs> to be turned to about 50% to get great whole-room levels. No noise. No> hum. So it doesn't seem to be the microphone. It seems to be the> interface. I don't want to carry the bulky board to concerts though.>

The two interfaces I've tried are the M-Audio Firewire 410 and the> PreSonus FireBox. The 410 was a poorly designed piece of crap with bad> software. The PreSonus was ok. Neither could boost the volume of the> microphone without maxing out their respective pre-amps and introducing> unacceptable amounts of noise.>

Is there an interface out there that has onboard preamps with the power> to boost the LSD2 to the point that I can reliably use this as a room> mic? I really hadn't budgeted for a separate mic pre at this point.>

What reasonably priced audio interfaces (usb, usb2, or firewire) have> the most gain-boosting mic preamps?

The problem I have run into is that the audio interfaces I've tried> can't give me enough gain to get anything out of this microphone for> room recording. In order to get half-decent levels I have to crank the> gain up to at least 90%. Somewhere around 85% gain the interfaces I've> tried produce a lot of noise, and some high-pitched hum as well.>

I've tested the mic on an old and bulky analog Yamaha mixing board that> does phantom power. It works fine, and the board's gain knob only needs> to be turned to about 50% to get great whole-room levels. No noise. No> hum. So it doesn't seem to be the microphone. It seems to be the> interface. I don't want to carry the bulky board to concerts though.

What reasonably priced audio interfaces (usb, usb2, or firewire) have> the most gain-boosting mic preamps?

I have just bought a Studio Projects LSD2 microphone. (It's a stereo> microphone with adjustable angle between 2 vertically coincident> condenser elements.) My plan is to use it to record live concerts using> mid-side or blumlein techniques. I had planned to get a firewire or USB> audio interface with microphone preamps and go mobile with my iBook for> recording.

Simple Question:>

What reasonably priced audio interfaces (usb, usb2, or firewire) have>the most gain-boosting mic preamps?>

Back Story:>

I have just bought a Studio Projects LSD2 microphone. (It's a stereo>microphone with adjustable angle between 2 vertically coincident>condense­r elements.) My plan is to use it to record live concerts using>mid-side or blumlein techniques. I had planned to get a firewire or USB>audio interface with microphone preamps and go mobile with my iBook for>recording.>

The problem I have run into is that the audio interfaces I've tried>can't give me enough gain to get anything out of this microphone for>room recording. In order to get half-decent levels I have to crank the>gain up to at least 90%. Somewhere around 85% gain the interfaces I've>tried produce a lot of noise, and some high-pitched hum as well.>

I've tested the mic on an old and bulky analog Yamaha mixing board that>does phantom power. It works fine, and the board's gain knob only needs>to be turned to about 50% to get great whole-room levels. No noise. No>hum. So it doesn't seem to be the microphone. It seems to be the>interface. I don't want to carry the bulky board to concerts though.>

The two interfaces I've tried are the M-Audio Firewire 410 and the>PreSonus FireBox. The 410 was a poorly designed piece of crap with bad>software. The PreSonus was ok. Neither could boost the volume of the>microphone without maxing out their respective pre-amps and introducing>unaccep­table amounts of noise.>

Is there an interface out there that has onboard preamps with the power>to boost the LSD2 to the point that I can reliably use this as a room>mic? I really hadn't budgeted for a separate mic pre at this point.>

Simple answer: The one with the highest gain and lowest EIN. Now, go>out and find that. You'll have trouble.>

The reason why is that the ones that you'll run into most easily are>designed for sitting on a desk next to a computer while you're wailing>away a couple of inches from a mic.

No, it's because you're expecting too much out> of cheap consumer electronics.

What I don't understand is why my Yamaha 1242 board can get such great> performance at only halfway through its gain adjustment while all these> interfaces and external preamps seem to be noisy and max out well> before I get any decent levels.>

The Yamaha doesn't quote its gain in the same way. It says the gain> control "adjusts the input sensitivity between -60 dB (0.775 mV) and> -20 dB (77.5 mV)." It says the inputs "accept nominal 50 ohm - 600 ohm> microphones.">

Could the difference between the board and the interfaces be due to> impedance matching? I'm ignorant about impedance.

Is there an interface out there that has onboard preamps with the power> to boost the LSD2 to the point that I can reliably use this as a room> mic? I really hadn't budgeted for a separate mic pre at this point.

Metric Halo Mobile IO ULN-2> <http://www.mhlabs.­com/metric_halo/prod­ucts>

There is no comparison between the quality of sound from the RNP and> that from the 410. The 410's spec sheet came froma marketing department> and the RNP's came from a bench test.

A mic pre-amp that will deliver a markedly better signal than the> ones in the audio interfaces will cost at least $1000 and the> difference will still be negligable (providing you use the pre-amps> in the audio interface properly as I described).

Simple Question:>

What reasonably priced audio interfaces (usb, usb2, or firewire) have> the most gain-boosting mic preamps?>

Back Story:>

I have just bought a Studio Projects LSD2 microphone. (It's a stereo> microphone with adjustable angle between 2 vertically coincident> condenser elements.) My plan is to use it to record live concerts using> mid-side or blumlein techniques

just live with the noise until> you can afford a serious preamp

What reasonably priced audio interfaces (usb, usb2, or firewire) have> the most gain-boosting mic preamps?>

Back Story:>

I have just bought a Studio Projects LSD2 microphone.

Actually, even the cheapest mic pres ( eg Behringer ) have their best noise> performance at high gain.>

Indeed a Behringer mic pre will outperform a Neve mic pre of late 1980s> vintage noise wise.>

A *serious* mic pre will not be likely to be any quieter. Technology has> found pretty much the noise floor for today's mic preamps regardless of cost.

I have started asking on taper boards (and thanks Kurt for the> reference to Oade... I will post there) and I only have one reply so> far, but he said that he's never gone over 22 dB or so with his LSD2.

So you're suggesting that it's useless to use a> microphone that needs more than about 55 dB of gain if> you don't want to hear hiss?

Back Story:>

I have just bought a Studio Projects LSD2 microphone.> (It's a stereo microphone with adjustable angle between 2> vertically coincident condenser elements.) My plan is to> use it to record live concerts using mid-side or blumlein> techniques. I had planned to get a firewire or USB audio> interface with microphone preamps and go mobile with my> iBook for recording.

The problem I have run into is that the audio interfaces> I've tried can't give me enough gain to get anything out> of this microphone for room recording. In order to get> half-decent levels I have to crank the gain up to at> least 90%.

Somewhere around 85% gain the interfaces I've> tried produce a lot of noise, and some high-pitched hum> as well.

I've tested the mic on an old and bulky analog Yamaha> mixing board that does phantom power. It works fine, and> the board's gain knob only needs to be turned to about> 50% to get great whole-room levels. No noise. No hum. So> it doesn't seem to be the microphone. It seems to be the> interface. I don't want to carry the bulky board to> concerts though.

Is there an interface out there that has onboard preamps> with the power to boost the LSD2 to the point that I can> reliably use this as a room mic? I really hadn't budgeted> for a separate mic pre at this point.

I suspect that the most of the people who really have a lot> of problems with mic preamp noise are those who are using> dynamic mics to record at some distance from the source. You> know, like trying to do a minimalist recording of a pipe> organ with 2 coincident SM57s.

It used to be that condenser mics, for the same SPL, had> 10-15 dB greater output than dynamic mics.

If you were to> compare a U47 with an EV 654 you'd see this. The mic> inputs on professional gear (broadcast and studio) had> enough gain to get a decent level out of a common ribbon> mic with either a close speaking voice (like a radio> announcer), a projecting singer, or an orchestra.> Condenser mics of the day often had to be padded down so> as not to overload the input stage.

Also, things tended to be more integrated so you didn't> have to worry about matching levels bertween stages. Plug> a mic into an Ampex 350 mic input and you'd get the VU> meter to hit 0 with almost any reasonable input somewhere> within the working range of the level control. But you> didn't know whether the "mic preamp" was putting out +24> dBu because all you wanted to do was get a good on-scale> meter reading. Along with this, when the meter read 0 VU,> the recorder's output wasn't +24 dBu, it was more likely> 20 dB lower. The recorder's distortion would start to get> unpleasant 10 dB higher than that, so even though> equipment was capable of 20 dB or more of headroom,> ominal operating levels were perhaps 10 dB lower than> they are today.

Add to this the fact that less experienced people started> using recording equipment. As a result, modern condenser> mics don't have quite as much higher output as dynamic> mics so the novices won't be worried about wide> variations in how they set up their equipment. Then throw> in lower internal noise floor (no tape hiss) and you> start to see why you can't get there from here.

Best advice is to be sure that there's nothing broken in> the chain (substituting another preamp and another mic of> the same type is a good approach) and then just work with> what you get.

Go to your friendly local Radio Shack, buy a sound level meter, and>measure the SPL of what you're trying to record. Jot the number down,>then return the meter if you don't find it fascinating and educational.>When we know how loud the source is that you're trying to record, then>(and only then) can we make an assessment of whether your mic is>working right.

I just heard a report that Radio Shack no longer has the> nifty analogue SPL meter. Is this true?

http://www.radiosha­ck.com/family/index.­jsp?categoryId=20322­22&cp=2032057.203218­7.2032193&parentPage­=search&kw=spl+meter­>

says "in stock" for both the analog and digtital flavors

I just heard a report that Radio Shack no longer has the nifty analogue> SPL meter. Is this true?

Sadly, not in Canada. In Canada the Radio Shack stores have become> circuit city and all Radio Shack branded items have been sent back.

I'm going to drop by a local> thx-certified hi-fi place that does all their own installation and> service. I'm going to try to con them into lending me something, but> they may be unwilling... their stuff may be extremely valuable to them.

Colin Henein wrote:> > Simple Question:

What's its rated sensitivity? What would you estimate the SPL to be at> your recording point? I fully agree with Brent; if it's anywhere near> typical sensitivity for a condenser it should be "melting the soundcard"> at 54 dB gain.

It used to be that condenser mics, for the same SPL, had 10-15 dB> greater output than dynamic mics. If you were to compare a U47 with an> EV 654 you'd see this. The mic inputs on professional gear (broadcast> and studio) had enough gain to get a decent level out of a common> ribbon mic with either a close speaking voice (like a radio announcer),> a projecting singer, or an orchestra. Condenser mics of the day often> had to be padded down so as not to overload the input stage.

Add to this the fact that less experienced people started using> recording equipment. As a result, modern condenser mics don't have> quite as much higher output as dynamic mics so the novices won't be> worried about wide variations in how they set up their equipment. Then> throw in lower internal noise floor (no tape hiss) and you start to see> why you can't get there from here.

Colin Henein <googlegroups@juice­r.orange-carb.org> wrote:

No, it's because you're expecting too much out of cheap consumer> electronics. --scott

I've tested quite a few condenser mics over the last ten> years, referencing them against the well-circulated Shure SM81 (which is,> indeed, about 10dB hotter than a typical dynamic mic). Virtually all of them> were *more* sensitive than the SM81, sometimes a lot more. These mics ranged> from Chinese cheapos to BLUEs and Gefells, and they were all hot, hot, hot.

Pooh Bear wrote:>

So you're suggesting that it's useless to use a microphone that needs> more than about 55 dB of gain if you don't want to hear hiss?

Not when tracking a bluegrass band from 20 feet away, speaking from> experience.

Looking at http://www.studiopr­ojects.com/lsd2.html­>

This mic has -38 dB sensitivity.

With that, 54 dB of gain would raise 84 dB SPL to 2 Vrms. Hank, is this> about what one would expect from a bluegrass band at 20 ft.>

Also, is 2 Vrms a reasonable approximation to 0 dBFS for line level> converters?

I am still worried that the LSD2 is not going to be able to pull in the> type of program I want to record. The thing is that I know that many> good old recordings of quiet sources were made with Blumlein from a> distance. What is different about my rig that accounts for its lower> sensitivity?

With that, 54 dB of gain would raise 84 dB SPL to 2 Vrms.> Hank, is this about what one would expect from a> bluegrass band at 20 ft.

Also, is 2 Vrms a reasonable approximation to 0 dBFS for> line level converters? That's what my Yamaha DS2416 does> but I don't know how typical it is.

Not hardly. 2V RMS is about +8 dBu. Most "pro" (nominal> +4 dBu operating level) A/D converters give you> somewhere in the ballpark of -16 dBFS at nominal input> level. So an input of +8 dBu would give you about -12> dBFS, which is a perfectly reasonable eyeball average> level.

But given that this only fills up about 1/4 of the> waveform display area, one might think that there's> insufficient level. And one might be wrong unless one is> recording something with no dynamic range. Not my idea of> a pleasant bluegrass band.

--> ha

However, Brent suggested trying it against another condenser. I was> able to borrow a Behringer B1. Not a great mic, but fits the bill in> terms of another condenser. My (SPL unknown) test rig indicates a> difference of about 12 dB between the lower requirements of gain for> the B1 vs. the higher requirements of the LSD2.>

Does this jive with your thoughts on these two microphones?

I am still worried that the LSD2 is not going to be able to pull in the> type of program I want to record.

The thing is that I know that many> good old recordings of quiet sources were made with Blumlein from a> distance. What is different about my rig that accounts for its lower> sensitivity?

hank alrich wrote:> > Yeah, Chevdood, that's all I hear from my fellow musos and clients, that> > I am just too ugly to be around.

But that kind of a face is made to get you on radio.

So, Mike, you have no problems with tracking at -12 dbFS, and it> appears that it is not necessary to track at -6 to -3 dbFS. Where would> you say the range is that I want to be looking at?

If I'm moving around> during a sound check to try to find a reasonable spot in the hall,> where should I be happy? Should I be happy with levels peaking at -24> dbFS? -18 dbFS? Obviously more is better, but where on the scale is> "not enough"?

We have a new recordist for sure ­ Or at least one who has gotten his> feet wet with a few rentals in the past, but now wants to own a decent> rig for his purposes. (And one who wants to return bad gear to the> store within 30 days if it is truly bad.)>

However, I'm innocent on watching the waveform view. Although maybe my> problem is equivalent. ­>

I am guilty for wanting to see VU levels from a distant mic up in the> same place as VU levels from final program material. It's easy to get> those kinds of levels on a close mic, but I'm learning from many in> this thread that it isn't a prerequisite for my purposes further back.> I'm coming to the conclusion that I'm not going to lose anything I care> about if I boost my levels in software.

hank alrich wrote:> > Bob Cain wrote:

And I know you have more than enough of that to speak with authority.> Have you ever measured the SPL in such a situation?

Paul Stamler wrote:>