Become a Site Supporter and Never see Ads again!

Author Topic: Internal mics question  (Read 3064 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline to_taper

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 66
Internal mics question
« on: July 07, 2017, 11:49:05 AM »
I have only used my internal mics once in the past 5 years, and that was out of desperation.

I have another situation where I want to record a local act but have to travel really lightly (the show occurs right between me taking my wife to a theatre matinee and then a dinner for our 35th wedding anniversary).

I have an Edirol R-09HR and a Sony PCM-M10. I plan to stand up by the speakers with the deck in my shirt pocket. Which of the two decks has the better mics?

Any help here on the deck or recording location would be appreciated.

Thanks

Offline heesu

  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 182
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #1 on: July 07, 2017, 12:01:00 PM »
I don't have either of those decks, but I've used internals a few times (zoom h2n / d50). You can pull decent recordings with internals, but they are more susceptible to crowd noise, and clipping. The quiet, acoustic shows have sounded good during the music - but were an absolute mess every time the crowd reacted. When I taped Bob Weir @ Austin City limits from the balcony, my levels were much better and the sound more balanced between music/applause - so it came out alright.

As long as you make sure you're not overloading, it should be ok.

Offline furburger

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 901
  • Gender: Male
  • UH-LASS-KUH
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #2 on: July 07, 2017, 05:57:11 PM »
I have only used my internal mics once in the past 5 years, and that was out of desperation.

I have another situation where I want to record a local act but have to travel really lightly (the show occurs right between me taking my wife to a theatre matinee and then a dinner for our 35th wedding anniversary).

I have an Edirol R-09HR and a Sony PCM-M10. I plan to stand up by the speakers with the deck in my shirt pocket. Which of the two decks has the better mics?

Any help here on the deck or recording location would be appreciated.

Thanks

I'm 100% sold on the internals on my DR-2D. (I own 4, and am about to buy 2 more)

they have 'lo', 'med', and 'high' gain settings, then 100 levels for each of those 3 settings.

around 88 to 92 on lo-gain, and 66 to 74 on med-gain is the best for "rock" music (and I tape a *lot* of it)

I'd imagine "high" gain would be for if you were at a Henry Rollins spoken word show, away from talkers and clappers.

I've had artists let me set them on the stage by their feet on 'low' gain, and come away with some pretty amazing stuff.   mini-tripods aid greatly in that.

the other sweet part about the DR-2D is the "dual" record mode, in that it will record a 2nd stereo track simultaneously anywhere from -6 to -12db (you can preset what level it's at in the menu before recording), so it's virtually impossible to get "too close overload", unless you set your levels way too hot.

I like to have my bounce anywhere  from -3 to -6dB for a well mixed show, to -8 to -12dB for a show that's poorly mixed that may need post-show equalization (more headroom).

I did *hate* the internals in my R-09 (1st generation, WAY too tinny and harsh), but the DR-2D internals, when set correctly, are very hard to discern from my Sonic Studios stealth mics, and on occasion they exceed the Sonics in quality.

so I'd stay away from the Edirol (unless that 2nd gen HR machine had improvements made) based on my experience with the internals on the *different* machine and go with the Sony, unless you can find a DR-2D
« Last Edit: July 07, 2017, 06:03:00 PM by furburger »
-------------
people who are fans of the music, they LOVE what I document and capture...people who are fans of themselves....not so much.

Offline furburger

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 901
  • Gender: Male
  • UH-LASS-KUH
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #3 on: July 07, 2017, 06:09:45 PM »
if your event is a few weeks from now, I could mail you one of my DR-2D's as a 'backup' for your event.

it's a"2 button push to record" deck (well 3, if you count "power on")
-------------
people who are fans of the music, they LOVE what I document and capture...people who are fans of themselves....not so much.

Offline bombdiggity

  • Trade Count: (11)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2017
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #4 on: July 07, 2017, 06:33:47 PM »
Use the Sony.  Set input sensitivity to low and use manual levels appropriately low. 
Gear:
Audio:
Schoeps MK4V
Nak CM-100/CM-300 w/ CP-1's or CP-4's
SP-CMC-25
>
Oade C mod R-44  OR
Tinybox > Sony PCM-M10 (formerly Roland R-05) 
Video: Varied, with various outboard mics depending on the situation

Offline nak700s

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 195
  • Gender: Male
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #5 on: July 07, 2017, 06:54:18 PM »
I own both of those decks.  The Edirol R-09HR has better internal mics.  They are rated better and in my personal experience, they are better.  The Sony PCM-M10 are good, but given the choice, there is no choice. Set your levels low enough to accommodate peaking out and put your limiter on anyway just to be safe.
Normal: Nakamichi CM-700's >> SD 744T (or) Sony PCM-M10
Stealth: CA-14c >> CA 9200 >> Edirol R-09HR
Ultra stealth: AudioReality >> AudioReality battery box >> Edirol R-09HR
Simple & Sweet!

Offline morst

  • Archivist: Camper Van Beethoven & Cracker
  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2370
  • Get in touch if you wanna record Cracker or CVB!
    • Soundscape Preservation Society
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #6 on: July 07, 2017, 08:59:15 PM »
I plan to stand up by the speakers with the deck in my shirt pocket. Which of the two decks has the better mics?
Remember to use hearing protection!!

I have the M10 and don't love the internal mics, but they work. I used to have a Zoom H2 and I thought it actually had pretty good mics (but it was not for me, because it could not handle proper line level input without an attenuator.)

One nice thing about the M10 is that the internal mics are omni's, so they don't have the proximity effect of a directional mic (extra bass pickup from close sources), and hence don't pick up as much handling noise as the units with cardioid internals.
Teams: Neumann, Bay Area Tapers, Multitrack, Pioneertown Tapers, Mac Geeks, Cassette Masters, Poster Collectors, Alumni of teams St Louis, Upper Midwest & Milwaukee / Southern Wisco

Offline edtyre

  • Trade Count: (51)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1763
  • Gender: Male
  • Team Philly " No Excuses, Just Tapes"
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #7 on: July 08, 2017, 12:13:20 PM »
mini-tripods aid greatly in that.

Isn't that a mic stand recording? :-)
music>mics>pre>recorder

Offline ilduclo

  • Trade Count: (3)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3711
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #8 on: July 08, 2017, 01:27:58 PM »
a friend of mine uses the m10 and gets pretty good results.  :cheers:

Offline daspyknows

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2452
  • Gender: Male
  • Don't ask, don't tell, don't get get caught
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #9 on: July 08, 2017, 01:30:16 PM »
mini-tripods aid greatly in that.

Isn't that a mic stand recording? :-)

selfie stick   :bigsmile:

Offline furburger

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 901
  • Gender: Male
  • UH-LASS-KUH
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #10 on: July 08, 2017, 10:24:54 PM »
mini-tripods aid greatly in that.

Isn't that a mic stand recording? :-)


no, I don't hang Deady bears from a 6 inch tripod, looking for attention.

it dampens the vibration from the stage floor.
-------------
people who are fans of the music, they LOVE what I document and capture...people who are fans of themselves....not so much.

Offline Scooter123

  • "I am not an alcoholic. I am a drunk. Drunks don't go to meetings."
  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 896
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #11 on: July 11, 2017, 01:32:59 AM »
I haven't heard a tape made with internal microphones worth a damn in probably three years.  Perhaps in a super small club with the band close in and moderate volume it might work, but basically internal mikes are crap. 

Any cheap microphone and a battery box will be a 100% improvement.  I started with Church Mikes and his preamps and they are way better than any internal mikes I've ever used or listened to. 

And if you think about it, Tascam, Zoom, and Sony probably spend no more than $10 on their mikes to sell their units at $200, and Church mikes and a battery box cost in excess of $200.  You get what you pay for.
Regards,

Scooter123

mk41 > N Box  > Sony M-10
mk4 > N Box > Sony M-10

Offline ilduclo

  • Trade Count: (3)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3711
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #12 on: July 11, 2017, 09:22:38 AM »
:lol:

Offline morst

  • Archivist: Camper Van Beethoven & Cracker
  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2370
  • Get in touch if you wanna record Cracker or CVB!
    • Soundscape Preservation Society
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #13 on: July 11, 2017, 02:37:31 PM »
And if you think about it, Tascam, Zoom, and Sony probably spend no more than $10 on their mikes to sell their units at $200, and Church mikes and a battery box cost in excess of $200.  You get what you pay for.

M10 retailed for $349 list...

And what do you reckon is the cost of the mic elements on the Church set versus the Primos that Sony uses? Just curious how your comparison of retail vs wholesale prices shoots out...

https://www.primomic.com
Teams: Neumann, Bay Area Tapers, Multitrack, Pioneertown Tapers, Mac Geeks, Cassette Masters, Poster Collectors, Alumni of teams St Louis, Upper Midwest & Milwaukee / Southern Wisco

Offline ilduclo

  • Trade Count: (3)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3711
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #14 on: July 11, 2017, 03:22:39 PM »
and, my Sony D50 has pretty good mics, too, IMO, and then there's the Sony d100, so I think internals can be ok...... :yack:

Offline daspyknows

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2452
  • Gender: Male
  • Don't ask, don't tell, don't get get caught
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #15 on: July 11, 2017, 10:15:36 PM »
For me I am looking better than ok.  To each his or her own but if its a choice between using internals or not taping, not taping is my choice.  Had a broken wire in my pre-amp a few years ago.  After using the internals for a few songs I said f it, I'll never listen to this.  I figured there would be a better source.  There was.  A pair of Neumans from a non prime spot sounded so much better than the internals from the 12th row.

Offline heesu

  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 182
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #16 on: July 11, 2017, 10:33:01 PM »
For me I am looking better than ok.  To each his or her own but if its a choice between using internals or not taping, not taping is my choice.  Had a broken wire in my pre-amp a few years ago.  After using the internals for a few songs I said f it, I'll never listen to this.  I figured there would be a better source.  There was.  A pair of Neumans from a non prime spot sounded so much better than the internals from the 12th row.

To each their own. I've listened to several recordings from zoom internals that were solid, from shows with no other sources. Glad they exist.

Offline Scooter123

  • "I am not an alcoholic. I am a drunk. Drunks don't go to meetings."
  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 896
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #17 on: July 12, 2017, 10:06:22 AM »
Well a Beatles reunion tape made with Zoom internals vs nothing.  Got it.  I'll take the Zoom thank you very much.

But the question is whether internals are better than the cheapest external option, e.g., Church mikes with a battery box and the answer is no, the cheapest external mikes will always outperform internal mikes, the components are higher quality and you have the benefit of a preamp/battery box.  I'm actually surprised there is a debate on this subject. 

Now there are options to make the internals sound better--like I said small club, close in, soft music.  They will work.  But still take that same location and swap out some cheap externals, and 100% of the time you'll have a better tape. 
Regards,

Scooter123

mk41 > N Box  > Sony M-10
mk4 > N Box > Sony M-10

Offline daspyknows

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2452
  • Gender: Male
  • Don't ask, don't tell, don't get get caught
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #18 on: July 12, 2017, 11:02:34 AM »
For me I am looking better than ok.  To each his or her own but if its a choice between using internals or not taping, not taping is my choice.  Had a broken wire in my pre-amp a few years ago.  After using the internals for a few songs I said f it, I'll never listen to this.  I figured there would be a better source.  There was.  A pair of Neumans from a non prime spot sounded so much better than the internals from the 12th row.

To each their own. I've listened to several recordings from zoom internals that were solid, from shows with no other sources. Glad they exist.

Yes, exactly.  Personally, I might listen to a song if its something epic and I really want to hear it (see Scooter123's comment).  In reality I have more music I could ever listen to and I'd rather listen to something I like that sounds really good. 

Offline nak700s

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 195
  • Gender: Male
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #19 on: July 12, 2017, 01:34:26 PM »
Well a Beatles reunion tape made with Zoom internals vs nothing.  Got it.  I'll take the Zoom thank you very much.

You so funny...I'd love to see a reunion with 2 out of 4 dead people!   :yack:

All kidding aside, I love the sarcasm on this thread, so much so, that I thought I'd add to it a bit.  Simply put, zoom is worthless (IMO). Yes, you get what you pay for. To take it a step further, internal mics are a semi-adequate back-up in the event that you are the only person there to record an event and that is your only option.  Church CA-14's are a solid sounding mic.  I mention this because Church mics have been brought up as a comparison to internals.  There is no comparing a real microphone to any internal mics.  I have used internals on both my Sony M10 and Edirol R-09HR in a pinch.  Given the recording atmosphere (eg. small bar with controlled volume compared to an arena), they may give you something to have as a reference to the music.  Will you want to listen to the recording for enjoyment?  Probably not.  They are thin recordings with little re-listenability.  So yeah, if you want something to make a good recoding, buy microphones.  But don't just buy them, research them first!  Go on etree, archive, dime, or whatever site you like and compare different mic/deck/pre combinations, being sure to know where they were recorded.  Mics don't have to cost you an arm and a leg, but you often do get what you pay for, so listen and decide where to draw the line for yourself.

As for using internal mics, as a choice, do the same research.  Just because Edirol/Roland internals may be reviewed as better sounding mics, doesn't mean you'll be any happier with them.  In the instances I have had to record with internals (again, using the M10 or the R-09HR), I have been happier with the R-09HR.  That isn't to say the M10 was bad.  they were also very different situations.  The R-09HR was at Jones Beach Theater, having no time to set up for a Dave Matthews show, I turned on the R-09HR while setting up real mics.  I recorded on the R-09HR for about 1minute and 20 seconds before switching to externals.  It was a similar situation with the M10, but it was in a small bar, and I didn't want to set up in front of their face, so I placed the M10 in front of them, and used that.  Will I listen to that recording.  LOL, no.  I did check it out, of course, to know how it came out, and I was surprisingly pleased with the results.  That doesn't mean it meets my standards to sit down and enjoy. The moral of the story, buy some damn mics and do the job right! If you need to keep it simple, audition the Church Audio CA-14 (cardiod) with a CA9200 pre.

Just as an added note.  You may not be a fanatical taper like many on this site (myself included in that mess), and sound quality may not be as important to you, as opposed to just documenting something.  Keeping that in mind, and do whatever the hell you want  :yahoo:
Normal: Nakamichi CM-700's >> SD 744T (or) Sony PCM-M10
Stealth: CA-14c >> CA 9200 >> Edirol R-09HR
Ultra stealth: AudioReality >> AudioReality battery box >> Edirol R-09HR
Simple & Sweet!

Offline furburger

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 901
  • Gender: Male
  • UH-LASS-KUH
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #20 on: July 13, 2017, 08:15:38 PM »
I haven't heard a tape made with internal microphones worth a damn in probably three years.  Perhaps in a super small club with the band close in and moderate volume it might work, but basically internal mikes are crap. 

Any cheap microphone and a battery box will be a 100% improvement.  I started with Church Mikes and his preamps and they are way better than any internal mikes I've ever used or listened to. 

And if you think about it, Tascam, Zoom, and Sony probably spend no more than $10 on their mikes to sell their units at $200, and Church mikes and a battery box cost in excess of $200.  You get what you pay for.


there's plenty of mine on dime done with internals that sound just fine, if not outstanding.

if one learns how to use the 3-way gain, in conjunction with positioning, one can make an excellent recording with the internals.


as for Church, I know Leonard Lombardo makes the same kind of mics (Sonic Studios), that he sells them for $500-700, and that each set is less than $30 in parts. (slightly more if you get the low-cut)

whatever the battery box is made of (hard plastic?), some black rubber coating, wire, a couple of little diaphragms, a hard plastic mount, a bit of foam, and a 1/8 plug

that's it.

« Last Edit: July 14, 2017, 01:42:07 AM by furburger »
-------------
people who are fans of the music, they LOVE what I document and capture...people who are fans of themselves....not so much.

Offline furburger

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 901
  • Gender: Male
  • UH-LASS-KUH
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #21 on: July 13, 2017, 08:28:38 PM »
a handful of "shitty internal microphone" recordings..... :google of rolleye smilies here:



Peter Mulvey w/ Suitcase Junket in Fairbanks: (*lots* of texture and a beautiful sound):

http://www.dimeadozen.org/torrents-details.php?id=595076


Loudon Wainwright III in Nashville (taped from the back of the room, away from the 'geese'):

http://www.dimeadozen.org/torrents-details.php?id=595385


36 Crazyfists (Alaskan metal band, they're big in Europe, showing that heavy music can be recorded with internals as well):

http://www.dimeadozen.org/torrents-details.php?id=579574


Black Mountain (sounds fine to these ears, or 90% as good as any mic-stand recording would sound...again, from the back of the room. no way to get away from the crowd, as Larimer has low ceilings and is tiny):

http://www.dimeadozen.org/torrents-details.php?id=577828


Guided By Voices (tiny dump in St. Louis, the Sonics source came out too "hot"):

http://www.dimeadozen.org/torrents-details.php?id=570603


and I have many more to torrent as well.




does that mean that all my internal recordings come out as good as the ones above?


no, not at all.


but this faux-elitism because "I use a mic stand" is sad, to say the least.



a mic stand is not an entry-level setup, nor is one necessary to make excellent captures.



#truestory
« Last Edit: July 13, 2017, 08:48:16 PM by furburger »
-------------
people who are fans of the music, they LOVE what I document and capture...people who are fans of themselves....not so much.

Offline jcable77

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 135
  • Gender: Male
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #22 on: July 13, 2017, 09:03:17 PM »
Just want to add that Naiant (Jon) makes phenomenal mics that in my opinion sound better than church stuff for cheaper $.
Mics- akg 460's ck 61's, nak 300's 3x cp1, cp2, naiant x-r's (cards). Pre- SD-302, x-r amp, apogee mini-me X2, Decks- pmd-671, R-44, dr-40, dr-03.....ISO cp-3 caps and a huge bag of mint HQ microphones on the side of the road.

Offline Limit35

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 124
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #23 on: July 14, 2017, 01:29:00 AM »
Just want to add that Naiant (Jon) makes phenomenal mics that in my opinion sound better than church stuff for cheaper $.

This. Jon makes a good selection of equipment. For example, with the price of his omnis I don't see any reason to use internals, just put them over your ear and plug them into the the recorder. No internal mics would sound that good.

Offline Scooter123

  • "I am not an alcoholic. I am a drunk. Drunks don't go to meetings."
  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 896
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #24 on: July 14, 2017, 10:05:16 AM »
Agreed.  There is simply no reason to use internals.  For half the price of a recorder, you can add a preamp and decent mikes which will significantly improve any recording.  Adding multiple recorders, recording at different settings, different locations, and even jumping to 24-98 won't improve the recording as much as a pair of inexpensive mikes and a preamp.  I don't think anyone disagrees with this concept, correct?

Did George Martin or Tom Dowd ever use internal mikes? 
Regards,

Scooter123

mk41 > N Box  > Sony M-10
mk4 > N Box > Sony M-10

Offline daspyknows

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2452
  • Gender: Male
  • Don't ask, don't tell, don't get get caught
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #25 on: July 14, 2017, 10:27:38 AM »
Agreed.  There is simply no reason to use internals.  For half the price of a recorder, you can add a preamp and decent mikes which will significantly improve any recording.  Adding multiple recorders, recording at different settings, different locations, and even jumping to 24-98 won't improve the recording as much as a pair of inexpensive mikes and a preamp.  I don't think anyone disagrees with this concept, correct?

Did George Martin or Tom Dowd ever use internal mikes?

All but 2 seem to agree based on what I have read here. 

On the hijacked comment isn't a "mini tripod"  a little mic stand?   What does a mic stand have to do with anything anyways?   I haven't owned mic stand in 30 years nor have I owned a  "mini tripod" ever.   I don't believe Scooter123 uses one either. 

It's about the mics.  All things being equal (key word there) better quality mics make a better recording.  The mics in an internal recorder are not going to be as good as a pair of inexpensive mics let alone mid priced mics or higher end mics.   Another point,  in a stealth setting it is easier to disguise a pair of mics at a higher height than a recorder with internal mics.  The extra 12 to 18 inches between a shirt pocket and hat does make a difference.  Nothing any settings on the recorder can do to change that fact.

Offline rocksuitcase

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3658
  • Gender: Male
    • RockSuitcase: stage photography
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #26 on: July 14, 2017, 10:46:51 AM »
It seems only a few have answered the Op's question R-09 vs M10.
I only have two personal references OT.
1] My buddy who is a boom operator owns an Olympus LS100 - IMO- the best internals I've heard.    (second buddy owns an LS-10 which is similar in SQ)
2] I own a Marantz PMD661- The only times I've used the internals were far away at a festival and of course it was awful.   
music IS love

When you get confused, listen to the music play!

Mics:         AKG461/CK8|Beyer M 201E
Recorders:Marantz PMD661 OADE Concert mod; Tascam DR680 MKI

Offline heesu

  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 182
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #27 on: July 14, 2017, 10:56:27 AM »
Agreed.  There is simply no reason to use internals. 

I use a zoom h2n when it's not open taping and I can just set it somewhere. I don't do  >:D anymore, it's just not fun for me. So in those instances its either that, or nothing (unless someone else is  >:D).

Does it sound as good as my CA14 setup? Definitely not. Are the recordings listenable? Yeah, I think they're alright (under the right circumstances).


Offline Moke

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2995
  • m0k3 - √!n¥¬ 633|<
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #28 on: July 14, 2017, 12:14:38 PM »
I ran a comparison of a DPA 402x/Grace V3/Sound Devices 722  vs. Edirol R09 internals, from 2nd row center of a Mozart-based acoustic concert. This was done to satisfy the conductors curiosity regarding the all-in-one recorder (R09), for his own use in recording rehearsals, lessons, etc. I velcro taped the R09 to the mic stand at above seated height (~5').  The big rig was at 9'
I gave both copies to the conductor.  He was very impressed with the R09 internal recording. I've enjoyed it as well. One thing it did really well with was in capturing the cello continuo in a way that I like to hear it.
Sent From My Craftsman Garage Door Opener

Offline bombdiggity

  • Trade Count: (11)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2017
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #29 on: July 14, 2017, 12:53:42 PM »
There are a lot of people a bit too (pre-)opinionated in this thread.

It is certainly possible to make a good listenable recording in the right circumstances with internal mics.  There are examples.  It is possible to make a not very listenable recording with external mics (even good mics).  There are examples of those too (though the issues with those are usually in the nature of a terrible space, bad position, crappy mix or other environmental factors). 

It's a question of improving the odds as well as determination, available equipment, etc. 

I'm usually in the camp that something is better than nothing (at least for some shows).  The would I listen to it again threshold varies with the qualities inherent in the performance unless it is just a truly horrible sounding recording. 
Gear:
Audio:
Schoeps MK4V
Nak CM-100/CM-300 w/ CP-1's or CP-4's
SP-CMC-25
>
Oade C mod R-44  OR
Tinybox > Sony PCM-M10 (formerly Roland R-05) 
Video: Varied, with various outboard mics depending on the situation

Offline lsd2525

  • Trade Count: (11)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1436
  • Gender: Male
  • Eschew obfuscation
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #30 on: July 14, 2017, 02:41:48 PM »
 :alert:
Mics: ADK A51s; AT4041; Superlux S502; CK91 active w/homebrew BB; AT853; Naiant X-X; Nak 300's
Recorders: M10; DR-60D; DR-70D

Offline bombdiggity

  • Trade Count: (11)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2017
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #31 on: July 14, 2017, 03:19:04 PM »
 :clapping:

Seriously old skool section there.  Where was that? 
Gear:
Audio:
Schoeps MK4V
Nak CM-100/CM-300 w/ CP-1's or CP-4's
SP-CMC-25
>
Oade C mod R-44  OR
Tinybox > Sony PCM-M10 (formerly Roland R-05) 
Video: Varied, with various outboard mics depending on the situation

Offline lsd2525

  • Trade Count: (11)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1436
  • Gender: Male
  • Eschew obfuscation
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #32 on: July 14, 2017, 04:09:26 PM »
:clapping:

Seriously old skool section there.  Where was that?

No idea:) Making the rounds on facebook. Two things about that photo: That taper looks like Henry Kissinger. And there isn't a damn soul smiling either.
Mics: ADK A51s; AT4041; Superlux S502; CK91 active w/homebrew BB; AT853; Naiant X-X; Nak 300's
Recorders: M10; DR-60D; DR-70D

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (13)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 11237
  • Gender: Male
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #33 on: July 14, 2017, 04:57:11 PM »
Rolling tape waiting for the jive to click and the magic to happen, we've all been there.  One guy sort of appears to be snickering.  Looks like Kissinger but he'd never be caught dead in that scene.  I say it's Neal Cassady sporting Ginsberg's glasses and a sweet hands-free stealth setup directly FOB.  Check out the two dudes head-holding identical mono boom boxes making a spaced A-B recording in the background!  That's deadication.
volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values | numeric values > voltages > vibrations > virtual teleportation time-machine experience

Offline furburger

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 901
  • Gender: Male
  • UH-LASS-KUH
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #34 on: July 14, 2017, 05:29:00 PM »
I don't think anyone disagrees with this concept, correct?

Did George Martin or Tom Dowd ever use internal mikes?

I disagree with your concept 100%.

I'm not a Beatles nut-fluffer, nor am I working with more than 2 tracks, but that is a classic mic-stand'r tactic, to pull in an analogy that has nothing to do at all with the original post to cover up that their argument is inherently flawed.


kinda like the stuffed animals they hang from their stands.
-------------
people who are fans of the music, they LOVE what I document and capture...people who are fans of themselves....not so much.

Offline furburger

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 901
  • Gender: Male
  • UH-LASS-KUH
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #35 on: July 14, 2017, 05:33:39 PM »
It seems only a few have answered the Op's question R-09 vs M10.


I stated that Edirol internals, in my experience are crap, that I have never owned an M10 (though what I've heard of M10 internals was not impressive) and that if the OP truly wanted to get an excellent internals capture, to get a DR-2D.

a seller had been dumping NIB ones on Ebay over the last month (I bought 3), and people were getting them for as cheap as $75 shipped.

in addition, I posted *five* great-sounding examples of DR-2D internals recordings across multiple genres (i.e. not 'just acoustic'), proving what I am saying.



when the DR-2D outperforms the Sonics 2-3 shows out of each 10 recorded, it's a viable alternative to the spendy route.


and it shows.
-------------
people who are fans of the music, they LOVE what I document and capture...people who are fans of themselves....not so much.

Offline Scooter123

  • "I am not an alcoholic. I am a drunk. Drunks don't go to meetings."
  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 896
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #36 on: July 14, 2017, 09:07:25 PM »
Wow, Furburger.

You really think that a Tascam DR2d with internals is better than the same recorder with external mikes and a preamp.  Amazing opinion. 

Which mike-preamp combination does your rig beat out?  The low end Church stuff, or is your Tascam internal rig better than AKG, Neumann, Naks, and Schoeps, as well?   

I'm dying to know. 
Regards,

Scooter123

mk41 > N Box  > Sony M-10
mk4 > N Box > Sony M-10

Offline furburger

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 901
  • Gender: Male
  • UH-LASS-KUH
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #37 on: July 15, 2017, 09:44:49 AM »
Wow, Furburger.

You really think that a Tascam DR2d with internals is better than the same recorder with external mikes and a preamp.  Amazing opinion. 

Which mike-preamp combination does your rig beat out?  The low end Church stuff, or is your Tascam internal rig better than AKG, Neumann, Naks, and Schoeps, as well?   

I'm dying to know.


nowhere did I say "better than".

I've always been happy with my recordings sounding 90% as good as a mic-stand recording at a fraction (1/20th?) of the cost.

the Tascam internals produce a superior recording to the Sonic Studios with the 3-way lo-cut 2-3 times out of 10.

it's usually when I'm at the Loon in the balcony (like the Mulvey show I linked) and put the deck at my feet on the projector box, but I've also done it in arenas and clubs in the States.

I've also done excellent recordings putting the DR-2D right at the performers feet (Kevn Kinney in Atlanta in '13 was a great one, ran two of them on stage, Sarah Peacock was another one that came out amazing)

throw in the non-existent set-up and tear-down time, and it's a viable alternative in more ways than one.   (cost/hassle/sound quality).



-------------
people who are fans of the music, they LOVE what I document and capture...people who are fans of themselves....not so much.

Offline Scooter123

  • "I am not an alcoholic. I am a drunk. Drunks don't go to meetings."
  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 896
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #38 on: July 15, 2017, 11:28:48 AM »
Agreed.  There is simply no reason to use internals.  For half the price of a recorder, you can add a preamp and decent mikes which will significantly improve any recording.  Adding multiple recorders, recording at different settings, different locations, and even jumping to 24-98 won't improve the recording as much as a pair of inexpensive mikes and a preamp.  I don't think anyone disagrees with this concept, correct?

OK, so good, we've settled that.  External mikes will achieve better results than internal mikes.

And you're happy with your recordings, which is a good thing. 
Regards,

Scooter123

mk41 > N Box  > Sony M-10
mk4 > N Box > Sony M-10

Offline TheMetalist

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 49
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #39 on: July 15, 2017, 01:53:46 PM »
Not many tapers use these internal mics (for obvious reasons) but here are some samples (not my recordings) that I found:

Roland R-09HR:
1. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/13548894/BillyBragg-170702-TapedBySoledriver-R-09HR.mp3
2. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/13548894/MikeNockTrio-170708-TapedByVierstein91-R-09HR.mp3

Sony PCM-M10:
1. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/13548894/TheShins-170709-TapedByJotjoqri-M10.mp3
2. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/13548894/Coldplay-160723-TapedByJotjoqri-M10.mp3

Pretty bad samples but I hope it will make your decision, at least a bit, easier.
It's not about fancy equipment. It's about the thrill, passion and hard work. Liberate the music!

"The music is your passport - Your magic key - To all the madness that awaits you." B.L. '86

Offline nak700s

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 195
  • Gender: Male
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #40 on: July 16, 2017, 09:39:03 AM »

I've always been happy with my recordings sounding 90% as good as a mic-stand recording at a fraction (1/20th?) of the cost.


 :facepalm:

Not to criticize your personal preferences, and everyone hears and appreciates music differently, but to suggest a percentage is to is to measure actual statistics or facts.  Yes, YOU have always been happy with your recordings made with your DR-2D, and that is a wonderful thing, as it is important to create something you are happy with.  To suggest, however, that those recordings actually sound as good or even better than real microphones is simply ludicrous.  They can not offer the range as a full size microphone, and just can't handle the bottom end effectively.  Period.  That may not matter to you, which is cool, but it does matter to serious tapers that invest in better equipment in order to reproduce the sound as accurately as possible.  As stated above, I have used the internal mics on the Sony PCM-M10 and the Edirol R-09HR (and the Edirol R-09).  The Sony isn't bad and the Edirol R-09HR is better, but neither come close to the Church Audio CA-14's (much less a full sized microphone).  I find it both comical and sad that you can't tell the difference...but moreover, I think it's a blessing, as you can enjoy so much more live recordings than I can.  Please don't take offense to what I've said, it was not a personal attack, only my humble opinion.  Cheers. 
Normal: Nakamichi CM-700's >> SD 744T (or) Sony PCM-M10
Stealth: CA-14c >> CA 9200 >> Edirol R-09HR
Ultra stealth: AudioReality >> AudioReality battery box >> Edirol R-09HR
Simple & Sweet!

Offline furburger

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 901
  • Gender: Male
  • UH-LASS-KUH
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #41 on: July 17, 2017, 04:22:03 AM »
taped Bush last night in Anchorage, ran both the Sonics > DR-2D and another DR-2D with internals sitting on the armrest of an empty seat (of which there were many)

while the bass on the Sonics source is 'more defined', it's also much thinner than what the internals captured. the internals bass sounds richer, and has a wider range on the EQ.

basically it was a "draw" between internals in a $150 deck and a $650 set of mics.

again, proving my point that while nice mics are cool, they are NOT necessary at all to obtain an excellent capture.
-------------
people who are fans of the music, they LOVE what I document and capture...people who are fans of themselves....not so much.

Offline TheMetalist

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 49
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #42 on: July 17, 2017, 06:40:03 AM »
taped Bush last night in Anchorage, ran both the Sonics > DR-2D and another DR-2D with internals sitting on the armrest of an empty seat (of which there were many)
Is it possible that you can share samples (without any added EQ of course) of these two recordings? I would love to make a comparison. I guess a few others here are curious as well.
It's not about fancy equipment. It's about the thrill, passion and hard work. Liberate the music!

"The music is your passport - Your magic key - To all the madness that awaits you." B.L. '86

Offline daspyknows

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2452
  • Gender: Male
  • Don't ask, don't tell, don't get get caught
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #43 on: July 17, 2017, 12:07:38 PM »
taped Bush last night in Anchorage, ran both the Sonics > DR-2D and another DR-2D with internals sitting on the armrest of an empty seat (of which there were many)
Is it possible that you can share samples (without any added EQ of course) of these two recordings? I would love to make a comparison. I guess a few others here are curious as well.

+1  as there are lots of definitions of "excellent"

Offline Sloan Simpson

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3267
  • Gender: Male
    • Southern Shelter
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #44 on: July 18, 2017, 09:54:02 AM »
taped Bush last night in Anchorage, ran both the Sonics > DR-2D and another DR-2D with internals sitting on the armrest of an empty seat (of which there were many)

while the bass on the Sonics source is 'more defined', it's also much thinner than what the internals captured. the internals bass sounds richer, and has a wider range on the EQ.

basically it was a "draw" between internals in a $150 deck and a $650 set of mics.

again, proving my point that while nice mics are cool, they are NOT necessary at all to obtain an excellent capture.

Wait, you're running a bass rolloff and saying the resulting bass sounds thin?  :clapping: :iamwithstupid:
Neumann KM-184> Tascam DR-680

Offline jbosco

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 92
  • Gender: Male
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #45 on: July 18, 2017, 11:10:44 AM »
taped Bush last night in Anchorage, ran both the Sonics > DR-2D and another DR-2D with internals sitting on the armrest of an empty seat (of which there were many)

while the bass on the Sonics source is 'more defined', it's also much thinner than what the internals captured. the internals bass sounds richer, and has a wider range on the EQ.

basically it was a "draw" between internals in a $150 deck and a $650 set of mics.

again, proving my point that while nice mics are cool, they are NOT necessary at all to obtain an excellent capture.

Wait, you're running a bass rolloff and saying the resulting bass sounds thin?  :clapping: :iamwithstupid:

Where does he say he had a bass roll off engaged?

My question is at what point did "Sonic Studios" become the standard to measure against? I had a set back in '91 for a while, sure they were easy to stealth, and made a halfway listenable recording at the time, but I'd hardly list them as "nice mics" and as a source Sonics are just above internals and I generally only grab them if they are the only source of I show I really want, or if all other sources are internals.
---
Neumann KM 184 -> Tascam DR 70D
DPA 4061 -> Sony M10

Offline Sloan Simpson

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3267
  • Gender: Male
    • Southern Shelter
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #46 on: July 18, 2017, 11:21:00 AM »
taped Bush last night in Anchorage, ran both the Sonics > DR-2D and another DR-2D with internals sitting on the armrest of an empty seat (of which there were many)

while the bass on the Sonics source is 'more defined', it's also much thinner than what the internals captured. the internals bass sounds richer, and has a wider range on the EQ.

basically it was a "draw" between internals in a $150 deck and a $650 set of mics.

again, proving my point that while nice mics are cool, they are NOT necessary at all to obtain an excellent capture.

Wait, you're running a bass rolloff and saying the resulting bass sounds thin?  :clapping: :iamwithstupid:

Where does he say he had a bass roll off engaged?
In the torrent.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2017, 11:26:51 AM by Sloan Simpson »
Neumann KM-184> Tascam DR-680

Offline Sloan Simpson

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3267
  • Gender: Male
    • Southern Shelter
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #47 on: July 18, 2017, 11:21:55 AM »
My question is at what point did "Sonic Studios" become the standard to measure against? I had a set back in '91 for a while, sure they were easy to stealth, and made a halfway listenable recording at the time, but I'd hardly list them as "nice mics" and as a source Sonics are just above internals and I generally only grab them if they are the only source of I show I really want, or if all other sources are internals.

This. Just because they're asking $600 doesn't make them good.
Neumann KM-184> Tascam DR-680

Offline lsd2525

  • Trade Count: (11)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1436
  • Gender: Male
  • Eschew obfuscation
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #48 on: July 18, 2017, 11:35:04 AM »
Having the roll off on is pretty much a sure fire way to decrease bass response ::)

I just had my first internals (not by choice) incident last night. Went to suit up a Primus last night, and the BB>recorder cable missing. So it was M10 internals or nothing. Put it on some lighting scaffolding in the back of the grass (smaller shed). We'll see how it came out. Guarantee it won't be as good as if I was running the 91's :angry2:
Mics: ADK A51s; AT4041; Superlux S502; CK91 active w/homebrew BB; AT853; Naiant X-X; Nak 300's
Recorders: M10; DR-60D; DR-70D

Offline jbosco

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 92
  • Gender: Male
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #49 on: July 18, 2017, 11:43:20 AM »
taped Bush last night in Anchorage, ran both the Sonics > DR-2D and another DR-2D with internals sitting on the armrest of an empty seat (of which there were many)

while the bass on the Sonics source is 'more defined', it's also much thinner than what the internals captured. the internals bass sounds richer, and has a wider range on the EQ.

basically it was a "draw" between internals in a $150 deck and a $650 set of mics.

again, proving my point that while nice mics are cool, they are NOT necessary at all to obtain an excellent capture.

Wait, you're running a bass rolloff and saying the resulting bass sounds thin?  :clapping: :iamwithstupid:

Where does he say he had a bass roll off engaged?
In the torrent.

I didn't even care enough to look, nice catch, too funny  ::)
---
Neumann KM 184 -> Tascam DR 70D
DPA 4061 -> Sony M10

Offline daspyknows

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2452
  • Gender: Male
  • Don't ask, don't tell, don't get get caught
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #50 on: July 18, 2017, 11:52:08 AM »
taped Bush last night in Anchorage, ran both the Sonics > DR-2D and another DR-2D with internals sitting on the armrest of an empty seat (of which there were many)

while the bass on the Sonics source is 'more defined', it's also much thinner than what the internals captured. the internals bass sounds richer, and has a wider range on the EQ.

basically it was a "draw" between internals in a $150 deck and a $650 set of mics.

again, proving my point that while nice mics are cool, they are NOT necessary at all to obtain an excellent capture.

Wait, you're running a bass rolloff and saying the resulting bass sounds thin?  :clapping: :iamwithstupid:

Where does he say he had a bass roll off engaged?

My question is at what point did "Sonic Studios" become the standard to measure against? I had a set back in '91 for a while, sure they were easy to stealth, and made a halfway listenable recording at the time, but I'd hardly list them as "nice mics" and as a source Sonics are just above internals and I generally only grab them if they are the only source of I show I really want, or if all other sources are internals.

Sonic Studio mics that have been abused beyond believe if you have followed the variety of threads.  I agree, they are one step above internals and far from "nice mics" and I only grab the recordings if there is no other source and its something I want to hear.  Mostly its listen to a song, find it disappointing and I delete.  They are far from "elitist" mics.

Offline to_taper

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 66
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #51 on: July 18, 2017, 12:03:03 PM »
Hi all,

Thanks for all of your insights. I did not mean to open Pandora’s box on this issue. I read all the posts with interest and took away a slight edge in using the Sony M10 rather than the Edirol. In the end I used that and taped the first set of the show I was interested in this past Saturday at the Distillery District here in Toronto.

Our play (Billy Bishop Goes to War) ended just before 4 pm and I went straight to the square while my wife went off to do some shopping. This would have been tough to tape in the best circumstances. The stage was set up in a major pedestrian traffic area and with a train line a couple of hundred yards behind the stage. The sound was good right in front of the stage in spite of the wandering, talking crowds. I was the only person standing in front of the stage since the sun was very bright. The crowd was off to the side in the shade.

I recorded the first set, and then sat down in the shade with a drink and enjoyed the second set with my wife and some people who sat near us in the theatre. Nice dinner afterwards and then a walk on the beach to cap off a terrific day.

To my ears, the recording is ok, and better than nothing. However, this exercise reinforced my bias against using the internals except in ultra-rare circumstances. I have only been willing to download or keep recordings with internal mics if I really like the artist and don’t have very many recordings by them. Same criteria as for a weaker sounding recording from the old days of snail mail trading and real-time copying.

If this type of situation comes up again, I would likely take my Church Audio omnis, clip them to my shirt collar and just run them on plug-in power, or maybe even use my old Aiwa mic, leaving the pre-amp at home.

Thanks again,

John

Offline KISSFAN

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 64
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #52 on: July 18, 2017, 01:27:09 PM »
Hi all,

Thanks for all of your insights. I did not mean to open Pandora’s box on this issue.

are you kidding?? this is a hilarious thread. Thanks for opening!

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (13)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 11237
  • Gender: Male
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #53 on: July 18, 2017, 02:41:54 PM »
One key difference I didn't see mentioned:

R-09 and M-10 both use internal omnis.
DR2d and Zoom H4 both use internal cardioids.

None of these have stellar microphones to begin with and all are compromised by being mounted in the recorder, yet you are more likely to get clearer, more pleasing results for music recording using a recorder with cardioids.  The necessary close-positioned mounting of the two mics in the recorder housing itself makes most internal omni recordings rather uninteresting in terms of stereo. 

However, if that's all you have on hand or all you want to deal with, you can at least improve the situation somewhat by fashioning a baffle between the omnis out of whatever you have on hand.  Below are photos of a small piece of cardboard I used to keep with one of my R-09s which improved the stereophonic qualities of recordings made with the internal omnis.   The wedge shape and the cutouts help maximize it's utility by arranging things so that each microphone element is as close as possible to it's own cardboard face.  Even though the stereo aspects were improved considerably using the baffle, the recordings simply weren't good enough that I ever used it for music recording.  I always had external mics on hand to make recordings I was far happier with.

But better-mediocre beats bad-mediocre. Whether better-mediocre beats no-recording or not is a question only you can answer for yourself.











Photos are from this thread exploring various baffles for internal and external omnis- Baffles for R-09 built-in mics & 4060 boundrisphere contraption
volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values | numeric values > voltages > vibrations > virtual teleportation time-machine experience

Offline bombdiggity

  • Trade Count: (11)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2017
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #54 on: July 18, 2017, 02:48:54 PM »

Our play (Billy Bishop Goes to War) ended just before 4 pm and I went straight to the square while my wife went off to do some shopping. This would have been tough to tape in the best circumstances. The stage was set up in a major pedestrian traffic area and with a train line a couple of hundred yards behind the stage. The sound was good right in front of the stage in spite of the wandering, talking crowds. I was the only person standing in front of the stage since the sun was very bright. The crowd was off to the side in the shade.

If this type of situation comes up again, I would likely take my Church Audio omnis, clip them to my shirt collar and just run them on plug-in power, or maybe even use my old Aiwa mic, leaving the pre-amp at home.


The situation you describe suggests omnis would not be the best choice of pattern due to all the distracting ambient noise.  Still if that's all you have you do have something. 

As GB notes the M-10 mics are omnis too so that may not have helped exactly. 
Gear:
Audio:
Schoeps MK4V
Nak CM-100/CM-300 w/ CP-1's or CP-4's
SP-CMC-25
>
Oade C mod R-44  OR
Tinybox > Sony PCM-M10 (formerly Roland R-05) 
Video: Varied, with various outboard mics depending on the situation

Offline bombdiggity

  • Trade Count: (11)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2017
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #55 on: July 18, 2017, 02:49:47 PM »
Gear:
Audio:
Schoeps MK4V
Nak CM-100/CM-300 w/ CP-1's or CP-4's
SP-CMC-25
>
Oade C mod R-44  OR
Tinybox > Sony PCM-M10 (formerly Roland R-05) 
Video: Varied, with various outboard mics depending on the situation

Offline daspyknows

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2452
  • Gender: Male
  • Don't ask, don't tell, don't get get caught
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #56 on: July 18, 2017, 04:43:43 PM »
very stealthy.  no one will notice that.

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (13)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 11237
  • Gender: Male
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #57 on: July 18, 2017, 05:31:20 PM »
Heh.  You're right, yet it's always situation dependent..

I once fashioned one of those wedge-baffles out of an upcoming-show / drink-special card for another taper who was sharing my stage-lip table recording using internal mics.   He planned to just set the recorder on the table anyway, with something partly covering it so as not to be blatantly obvious.  Was not an open taping show, though not particularly enforced security-wise.  I think it actually helped disguise the recorder rather well in that low-pressure situation from off-hand glances, covering the screen and controls.  Sort of made for good camouflage as it looked pretty much like the other upcoming-show / drink-special cards standing on all the other tables.

However, another recording made simultaneously at the same table using body baffled external omnis sounded significantly better when I compared them later.. and no one, including the guy recording with the internal mics knew that one was being made at the time.
volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values | numeric values > voltages > vibrations > virtual teleportation time-machine experience

 

RSS | Mobile
Page created in 0.65 seconds with 80 queries.
© 2002-2017 Taperssection.com
Powered by SMF
Website Design by Foxtrot Media, Inc., a Baltimore Website Company