Ooo...yeah...uhmmm...I'm going to have to disagree with you there. At least if your BHIC recording is held up as an example of 'excellent'.
The two BHIC recordings illustrate the differences between internals v. good external mics quite obviously, IMO. Everyone interested in internals v. externals should have a listen.
At any rate, glad you and others like your recordings!
the recording I posted was Sonics > Tascam...pretty sure them'r external, and was listed such on the link.
the first couple songs, as with nearly *any* show, were being dialed in. the 75-90m part of the show was pretty amazing.
but, most importantly, I never said here that it was "excellent" (that was for the dime'rs),
I merely said that it was ***better than daspys***.
you never did respond the other times I posted *much* better examples (the 5 link list that starts with Mulvey, strictly internal recordings, and a list of I think 10 in the Church Audio thread)....I expected as much, but it is what it is.
As for the two reference recordings - has the furbie version been EQ'd or is that the raw file? To my taste, the daspy version is more listenable, but I can see where some EQ on the furbie version would make it probably close to as listenable. Furbie's comment that daspy's has some phasing is correct. In headphones, this can be distracting, but in my listen, it wasn't dramatic and I wasn't put off too much by it. I wouldn't not listen to it because of this.
To further furbie's point (I know, quite shocking considering he thinks I'm one of the elitist mic-standers), compare these two recordings:
https://archive.org/details/nma2016-07-09.ca-11.flac16/nma2016-07-09t08.flac
https://archive.org/details/NMAS2016-07-09.AKG/Nmas2016-07-09Track07.flac
I'm pretty sure the AKG source was not EQ'd. The Church Audio source was EQ'd. Now they weren't recorded from the same spot - far from it. The CA source is done from the rail, shoulder mounted (which relates to one of furbie's techniques). The AKG source is about 50 ft. back on a stand. Now, I prefer my CA source over the AKG source and not just because it is my recording. I don't know what I'd think if I compared the raw CA source, but I always EQ my CA recordings because they need it. But, if I didn't use my CA gear sometimes, the recording wouldn't get done.
I think this is furbie's point. He's saying he can get a good recording with his $150 deck. Is it the best? Probably not, but it is good enough for him (and others) and we should probably stop pissing on him (at least with regards to this aspect.) And EQ can be an okay thing, not something to look down your nose at. You may not agree with his attitude or even his technique, but at the end of day, the result is what matters.
Furbie's message can get lost among the arrogance and misogyny, but I think he has a point if you can find it. Just food for thought.
I always thought you were alright there R, until ya blocked me from FB and from here for reasons that I've really no idea they may be.
that aside, you pretty much hit the nail on the head.
though this bit of history has been explained before, I've been a taper for 25 years on August 25.
the attitudes that
some of the mic-stand'rs have currently mimic to a tee the DATtitudes from 1995, when people turned their nose at my recordings ***simply because they were on a D6 vs. a DAT***?
I mean.........seriously? without even listening to them?
just because I didn't wanna shift to "Betamax mini" at twice the cost, when living in Alaska (that's ticket money, plane or concert, when you get into blanks, DAT home decks that *failed* quite often), that's a 'reason' to not want to trade with someone (oh yeah, the hassle of having to DAT > analog, fergot that one)
fortunately, I had a good chunk of friends who did have DAT's, who did mix down, and send to those who would not listen initially. and soon I had a nice chunk of DAT master > 1g analog tapes. and over the years some DAT traders have actually asked for their analog copies back, as their DAT's *failed*
never had that happen to an analog tape, sans a deck getting hungry.....
basically, this kinda reminds me of 20 years ago all over again, I *could* see if I was using an Aiwa handheld condenser-mic walkman with a limiter built in...but I shit you not, the internals in that DR-2D are ***not that bad***.
anyhow, regarding the Harper, this is the dime torrent. it has been EQ'd (lightly, other than one frequency), and I think Dennis did a bangsnap job. I didn't even re-record in in real time as I sometimes do, he simply applied the settings I recommended with his EQ (running 98hz at -6dB only on a 2nd run, bringing it down to -12), and when I look at mine vs. daspy's on an EQ, it's not even close to a contest in terms of overall range (left > right lift) and bounce. realistically, not only is it a *headline* set (vs. festival), but it's also fluffed pretty decent by me AND there's the novelty of an "Alaskan" show, which I'm sure has contributed to why it got more d/'s than dapsy's right out of the gate (yes, regardless of my comments, my head is pretty much grounded in reality about this):
www.dimeadozen.org/torrents-details.php?id=597257there are samples there of segments in the top comments I thought sounded pretty good if you don't wanna download it.
and thanks for the kind words, btw....a lot of the misogyny is an act.....promise.
after my friend from Indiana leaves Thursday night, I'm gonna pop the Ben internals source in (still haven't even listened yet) to see if it's better than the Sonics. it's doubtful, but there's a chance that it is. if there's a big enough difference, I may post a WT link of it as well.
but yes, my initial link was the raw one, the dime torrent was EQ'd and what was done was listed in the comments.