Taperssection.com

Gear / Technical Help => Ask The Tapers => Topic started by: to_taper on July 07, 2017, 11:49:05 AM

Title: Internal mics question
Post by: to_taper 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
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: heesu 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.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger 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
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger 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")
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: bombdiggity on July 07, 2017, 06:33:47 PM
Use the Sony.  Set input sensitivity to low and use manual levels appropriately low. 
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: nak700s 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.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: morst 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.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: edtyre on July 08, 2017, 12:13:20 PM
mini-tripods aid greatly in that.

Isn't that a mic stand recording? :-)
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: ilduclo on July 08, 2017, 01:27:58 PM
a friend of mine uses the m10 and gets pretty good results.  :cheers:
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: daspyknows on July 08, 2017, 01:30:16 PM
mini-tripods aid greatly in that.

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

selfie stick   :bigsmile:
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger 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.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: Scooter123 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.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: ilduclo on July 11, 2017, 09:22:38 AM
^  :lol:
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: morst 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
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: ilduclo 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:
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: daspyknows 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.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: heesu 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.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: Scooter123 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. 
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: daspyknows 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. 
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: nak700s 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:
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger 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.

Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger 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
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: jcable77 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 $.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: Limit35 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.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: Scooter123 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? 
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: daspyknows 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.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: rocksuitcase 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.   
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: heesu 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).

Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: Moke 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.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: bombdiggity 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. 
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: lsd2525 on July 14, 2017, 02:41:48 PM
 :alert:
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: bombdiggity on July 14, 2017, 03:19:04 PM
 :clapping:

Seriously old skool section there.  Where was that? 
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: lsd2525 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.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: Gutbucket 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.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger 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.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger 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.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: Scooter123 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. 
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger 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).



Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: Scooter123 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. 
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: TheMetalist 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.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: nak700s 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. 
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger 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.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: TheMetalist 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.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: daspyknows 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"
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: Sloan Simpson 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:
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: jbosco 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.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: Sloan Simpson 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.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: Sloan Simpson 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.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: lsd2525 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:
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: jbosco 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  ::)
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: daspyknows 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.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: to_taper 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
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: KISSFAN 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!
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: Gutbucket 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.

(http://taperssection.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=70134.0;attach=44210;image)

(http://taperssection.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=70134.0;attach=44212;image)

(http://taperssection.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=70134.0;attach=44214;image)

(http://taperssection.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=70134.0;attach=44218;image)

(http://taperssection.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=70134.0;attach=44216;image)

Photos are from this thread exploring various baffles for internal and external omnis- Baffles for R-09 built-in mics & 4060 boundrisphere contraption (http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=70134.msg939769#msg939769)
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: bombdiggity 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. 
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: bombdiggity on July 18, 2017, 02:49:47 PM

Photos


Fly that V ;-) 
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: daspyknows on July 18, 2017, 04:43:43 PM
very stealthy.  no one will notice that.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: Gutbucket 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.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger on July 22, 2017, 07:03:08 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)
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.


I will when I get home, along with Tim Easton, Ben Harper and 36 Crazyfists.

3 different styles of music (4, if you count Bush), and you can do the side-by-side.

guessing the Sonics will do better on Ben already, based on the venue and what I plan on doing (filming from the top of a motorhome, stealth)

the other 2 will be a tossup.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger on July 22, 2017, 07:06:10 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:


um, have been running the bass rolloff since 1994, literally hundreds of shows....this was an anamoly, that being the thin(ner, NOT "thin", thinner compared to the interanls, fuck, it's Bush) bass sound. it's not a huge difference, I was just surprised, as the Sonics *usually* produce a much richer low end...but not this time.

it was a weird mix, it cut out at the beginning and the end a couple different times onstage
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger on July 22, 2017, 07:07:43 AM


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.


you must be in the minority then, as I sold a dozen pairs for Leonard in the 90's, and I know more tapers than not who consider them a pretty good standard, starting with their dynamic range.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: nak700s on July 22, 2017, 09:33:42 AM


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.


you must be in the minority then, as I sold a dozen pairs for Leonard in the 90's, and I know more tapers than not who consider them a pretty good standard, starting with their dynamic range.

I have a pair of Sonics (6's I believe).  My taping partner in crime was initially given a pair of 5's to use and review.  He wanted a pair customized for his connecting needs, and they sent him a pair of custom 6's. They're custom cables and the right angle work was impressive, by the way.  Anyway, I ultimately ended up with the 6's and used them several times.  They're far better than any internal I've ever heard, but nowhere near a quality, full-size microphone.  They were built for stealth situations, and handle that exceptionally well, but fall short in sound.  They are way better than nothing, and worth using if a stealth mic set-up is required.
As for them being any kind of standard...they were, in my opinion, the beginning of a quality mic being made exclusively for stealth and ease.  But that is where it ends.  Compared to the options today, I do not believe they hold up.  There are "older microphones" (not stealthy), that hold up to the quality of today's standards, because they sound great.  On the stealth level, I do not believe Sonics hold up compared to more modern offerings in the same category.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: TheMetalist on July 22, 2017, 10:26:20 AM
you must be in the minority then, as I sold a dozen pairs for Leonard in the 90's, and I know more tapers than not who consider them a pretty good standard, starting with their dynamic range.

A lot has happened with technology the last twenty years. What was "pretty good" back in the 90's most likely can't compete with today's standards. Compare the Sonics with other stealth mics like Church Audio and it's obvious that things have developed for the better.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: daspyknows on July 22, 2017, 12:13:17 PM
you must be in the minority then, as I sold a dozen pairs for Leonard in the 90's, and I know more tapers than not who consider them a pretty good standard, starting with their dynamic range.

A lot has happened with technology the last twenty years. What was "pretty good" back in the 90's most likely can't compete with today's standards. Compare the Sonics with other stealth mics like Church Audio and it's obvious that things have developed for the better.

My Schoeps MK4 caps are 25 years old and sure hold their own.  I have a friend's pair of new MK4's and will be doing an A/B very soon.  The Sonic Studios are entry level stealth mics, nothing more.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: TheMetalist on July 22, 2017, 03:47:40 PM
My Schoeps MK4 caps are 25 years old and sure hold their own.

They are bloody expensive caps so it would be really unfortunate if they didn't hold up to today's standards. :bigsmile:

I know they are used for stealth work, but just as my AKG CK61/63 caps, they are not as stealthy (size) as Church Audio, Audio Technica, Sonics and others. Comparing MK4 caps with Sonics is just...
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: daspyknows on July 22, 2017, 04:44:25 PM
My Schoeps MK4 caps are 25 years old and sure hold their own.

They are bloody expensive caps so it would be really unfortunate if they didn't hold up to today's standards. :bigsmile:

I know they are used for stealth work, but just as my AKG CK61/63 caps, they are not as stealthy (size) as Church Audio, Audio Technica, Sonics and others. Comparing MK4 caps with Sonics is just...

They have held up well.  Mine have been used for enough shows that on a per show basis they are probably less than CA-11's for many.  No problem stealthing with MK4's, all I do.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: CRUNCHY WATER on July 22, 2017, 05:02:39 PM
I had and used Sonic Studio DSM6s mics with and without the roll-off.  I also had Neumann KM140's and A lunatec V2.  The Sonics smoked the Neumann/Lunatec V2 in Sound quality. I pulled off my best sounding shows with the Sonics over the Neumanns.  Needless to say I sold the Neumanns and Lunatec V2 because I fell for the BS from the taping community regarding large rigs.  I had to find out the hard way that this was a HUGE waste of money for taping concerts. On that note....When I taped Gov't Mule back in the day with my Neumann rig, the tapers with their rigs were the biggest assholes that thought their gear was the best and they knew it all about mic placement and gain settings, etc.  Everyone at the time was checking the serial numbers on the Lunatecs to see who had the lowest serial number.  Mine was like #9 and I could care less, but it was a big deal to these idiots. I picked up a few of their tapes to see how they sounded and they sounded like shit for what they had running. Sonics all the way for my money. I'll bet if a show was done with Sonics and released with false info, nobody would even know. One can say it was taped with mics Elvis Presley used in Sun Studio run with a Neumann prototype Pre and everyone would be like "wow that shit sounds good". Sonics or bust.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: Sloan Simpson on July 22, 2017, 05:05:29 PM
lol
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: bombdiggity on July 22, 2017, 07:42:37 PM
^^
a few words from a parallel community...   :shrug:
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: TheMetalist on July 23, 2017, 06:55:30 AM
No problem stealthing with MK4's, all I do.

Yes, I know, but some tapers think they're not stealthy enough. Which, in a way is hilarious comparing with the massive gear tapers and filmers had to sneak in to shows back in the days.  8)
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: nak700s on July 23, 2017, 09:24:32 AM
No problem stealthing with MK4's, all I do.

Yes, I know, but some tapers think they're not stealthy enough. Which, in a way is hilarious comparing with the massive gear tapers and filmers had to sneak in to shows back in the days.  8)

Back in the day was pre-9/11, things were different then, venues weren't being blown up.  Yes we snuck in full sized gear, and it wasn't small, but it's all relative.  Now we have metal detectors to deal with and security that are often trained to look for us.  It's doable under any circumstance now, in my opinion, but sizes is definitely a factor. 
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: bombdiggity on July 23, 2017, 11:22:20 AM
No problem stealthing with MK4's, all I do.

Yes, I know, but some tapers think they're not stealthy enough. Which, in a way is hilarious comparing with the massive gear tapers and filmers had to sneak in to shows back in the days.  8)

Back in the day was pre-9/11, things were different then, venues weren't being blown up.  Yes we snuck in full sized gear, and it wasn't small, but it's all relative.  Now we have metal detectors to deal with and security that are often trained to look for us.  It's doable under any circumstance now, in my opinion, but sizes is definitely a factor.

Not really a factor.  I waltzed through metal detector wands into B'more Arena in the 90's for Little Feat with a video camera, lens, camera batteries, a nakamichi mic, xlr cable, etc. 

In the 10's I unwittingly took the Schoeps, cables, r44, DVD battery and a tripod stand through a walkthrough.

It's all relative and maybe how they're set (see the other thread on security).  Nothing is a factor or a problem if you've done it often enough and apply all the techniques.  Size is so much less a factor now though. 

Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: daspyknows on July 23, 2017, 12:18:03 PM
No problem stealthing with MK4's, all I do.

Yes, I know, but some tapers think they're not stealthy enough. Which, in a way is hilarious comparing with the massive gear tapers and filmers had to sneak in to shows back in the days.  8)

Back in the day was pre-9/11, things were different then, venues weren't being blown up.  Yes we snuck in full sized gear, and it wasn't small, but it's all relative.  Now we have metal detectors to deal with and security that are often trained to look for us.  It's doable under any circumstance now, in my opinion, but sizes is definitely a factor.

Before 9/11?  He is talking the real old days.  Shit, we stealthed with a PCM F-1/SL200 batteries, pre-amp and mics.  I brought that through the front door many times.  It IS doable to bring a Schoeps rig in path walk throughs and wands.  Check out my uploads the past 12 months.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: TheMetalist on July 23, 2017, 02:01:36 PM
Before 9/11?  He is talking the real old days.  Shit, we stealthed with a PCM F-1/SL200 batteries, pre-amp and mics.  I brought that through the front door many times.

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. Damn, that gear was huge. That demanded admirable dedication. I started taping in 1992 and the Sony WM-D3 I used was really stealthy. Can't even imagine the effort bringing that gear in.  8)

Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: nak700s on July 23, 2017, 02:34:03 PM
Don't get me wrong, I should have been named Will, because where there's a will, there's a way.  I always got my stuff in, no matter the size or the metal detectors...I can write a book, believe me!  Nowadays though, they aren't looking for tapers as much as they're looking for bombs, guns, etc.  We live in a different world.  Not everyone is as capable as we are.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: daspyknows on July 23, 2017, 02:36:53 PM
Don't get me wrong, I should have been named Will, because where there's a will, there's a way.  I always got my stuff in, no matter the size or the metal detectors...I can write a book, believe me!  Nowadays though, they aren't looking for tapers as much as they're looking for bombs, guns, etc.  We live in a different world.  Not everyone is as capable as we are.

You got it.  I was in London for Eric Clapton when Manchester bombing hit.  Did we leave gear home?  No we stepped up our game and got everything in. 
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: acidjack on July 23, 2017, 05:55:08 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)

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.
You think? They are overpriced, being based on the same two dollar Panasonic cap as CSB, but they are way better than those. Worse than DPA 4061, but I think comparing those to internals is unfair. Sonics from the sweet spot can, I think, beat a better rig from a less-than-sweet spot. Shit I've made recordings of the same band, same venue, with Audix caps and Church Audio cables in a good spot and my Schoeps in a much worse spot, and the Audix were way better.

But even leaving placement aside, I don't think Sonics can be classed with internals, or CSBs, or probably even CA mics, TBH.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: daspyknows on July 23, 2017, 06:59:51 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)

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.
You think? They are overpriced, being based on the same two dollar Panasonic cap as CSB, but they are way better than those. Worse than DPA 4061, but I think comparing those to internals is unfair. Sonics from the sweet spot can, I think, beat a better rig from a less-than-sweet spot. Shit I've made recordings of the same band, same venue, with Audix caps and Church Audio cables in a good spot and my Schoeps in a much worse spot, and the Audix were way better.

But even leaving placement aside, I don't think Sonics can be classed with internals, or CSBs, or probably even CA mics, TBH.

Never said they were comparable to internals. The only thing comparable to internals are internals.  Sonics are imho average mics.  Not something I would choose to use if given options.  Side by side they do not compare to DPA 4061s, Schoeps, Neumans, Nak 700s and many others but yeah if you are in the perfect spot with Sonics and in the men's room or back corner with better mics you should get a better recording with Sonics.   Personally, I don't record from a location like that either.  Stealth taping is all about sacrifices.  I am not into sacrificing my mics beyond Schoeps or the location I tape from wherever possible.  I am willing to sacrifice using a babynbox versus an nbox platinum if I fail getting in the first try but that is it.  Placement is a bit of a crapshoot given its stealth and sound of venue beyond any of our control. 
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger on July 24, 2017, 05:07:25 AM


I have a pair of Sonics (6's I believe).  My taping partner in crime was initially given a pair of 5's to use and review.  He wanted a pair customized for his connecting needs, and they sent him a pair of custom 6's. They're custom cables and the right angle work was impressive, by the way.  Anyway, I ultimately ended up with the 6's and used them several times.  They're far better than any internal I've ever heard, but nowhere near a quality, full-size microphone.  They were built for stealth situations, and handle that exceptionally well, but fall short in sound.  They are way better than nothing, and worth using if a stealth mic set-up is required.
As for them being any kind of standard...they were, in my opinion, the beginning of a quality mic being made exclusively for stealth and ease.  But that is where it ends.  Compared to the options today, I do not believe they hold up.  There are "older microphones" (not stealthy), that hold up to the quality of today's standards, because they sound great.  On the stealth level, I do not believe Sonics hold up compared to more modern offerings in the same category.


but that's half the fun.

that being: pushing an *alleged* inferior mic to the limits of what it can do vs. coasting on mics that cost thousands of dollars.

again, I'm plenty happy with tapes that sound 90% as good as several thousand dollar setups...as are the hundreds if not thousands of different folks who download my stuff.

as for the Sonics, their range is a full 20hz to 20khz. I'm not aware of many mics that exceed that range.

it's too bad their maker is a putz of immense proportions.




Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger on July 24, 2017, 05:09:16 AM
you must be in the minority then, as I sold a dozen pairs for Leonard in the 90's, and I know more tapers than not who consider them a pretty good standard, starting with their dynamic range.

A lot has happened with technology the last twenty years. What was "pretty good" back in the 90's most likely can't compete with today's standards. Compare the Sonics with other stealth mics like Church Audio and it's obvious that things have developed for the better.


not at all.

I'll take my Sonics and the hundreds of situations I've used them in over Church mics any day (I have a pair as backup that have never been used).

Chris uses cheaper matererials then Leonard, hence his higher break-down rate.

throw in his nearly-a-year repair time, and that's MORE of a hassle than setting up and tearing down a mic stand.


if you can't rely on your equipment, why even bother?
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger on July 24, 2017, 05:15:16 AM
you must be in the minority then, as I sold a dozen pairs for Leonard in the 90's, and I know more tapers than not who consider them a pretty good standard, starting with their dynamic range.

A lot has happened with technology the last twenty years. What was "pretty good" back in the 90's most likely can't compete with today's standards. Compare the Sonics with other stealth mics like Church Audio and it's obvious that things have developed for the better.

My Schoeps MK4 caps are 25 years old and sure hold their own.  I have a friend's pair of new MK4's and will be doing an A/B very soon.  The Sonic Studios are entry level stealth mics, nothing more.


yeth dathpy, we *get* that all stealth mics are "entry level mics".....***in your opinion***.


I'd be surprised if my Ben Harper show tomorrow doesn't smoke all of your BH recordings.

again, because I'm pretty well versed in mic placement.


just so you know.
I had and used Sonic Studio DSM6s mics with and without the roll-off.  I also had Neumann KM140's and A lunatec V2.  The Sonics smoked the Neumann/Lunatec V2 in Sound quality. I pulled off my best sounding shows with the Sonics over the Neumanns.  Needless to say I sold the Neumanns and Lunatec V2 because I fell for the BS from the taping community regarding large rigs.  I had to find out the hard way that this was a HUGE waste of money for taping concerts. On that note....When I taped Gov't Mule back in the day with my Neumann rig, the tapers with their rigs were the biggest assholes that thought their gear was the best and they knew it all about mic placement and gain settings, etc.  Everyone at the time was checking the serial numbers on the Lunatecs to see who had the lowest serial number.  Mine was like #9 and I could care less, but it was a big deal to these idiots. I picked up a few of their tapes to see how they sounded and they sounded like shit for what they had running. Sonics all the way for my money. I'll bet if a show was done with Sonics and released with false info, nobody would even know. One can say it was taped with mics Elvis Presley used in Sun Studio run with a Neumann prototype Pre and everyone would be like "wow that shit sounds good". Sonics or bust.

this man speaks more truth than 90% of the peeps here


.

But even leaving placement aside, I don't think Sonics can be classed with internals, or CSBs, or probably even CA mics, TBH.


utterly untrue and laughable.

CSB's are an utter joke of a mic, you have to be 10 ft. from the stack to pull anything usable.

CA, again, SHODDY MATERIALS that BREAK. why anyone would rely on them, I've no idea.

keep telling yourself that to feel better if you wish, but it's like comparing a Subaru Legacy (Sonics) to a Kia or a Yugo (CSB and CA, respectively).

they'll all get you where you're going, but which of the 3 would *you* pick if you were renting?
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger on July 24, 2017, 05:17:35 AM

Never said they were comparable to internals. The only thing comparable to internals are internals.  Sonics are imho average mics.  Not something I would choose to use if given options.  Side by side they do not compare to DPA 4061s, Schoeps, Neumans, Nak 700s and many others but yeah if you are in the perfect spot with Sonics and in the men's room or back corner with better mics you should get a better recording with Sonics.   Personally, I don't record from a location like that either.  Stealth taping is all about sacrifices.  I am not into sacrificing my mics beyond Schoeps or the location I tape from wherever possible.  I am willing to sacrifice using a babynbox versus an nbox platinum if I fail getting in the first try but that is it.  Placement is a bit of a crapshoot given its stealth and sound of venue beyond any of our control.


huh?

I've pulled recordings with the Sonics in the 300 level that sound like they were recorded from the 10th row, sans the 'geese'.

or, placement is not a crapshoot at all, IF you know what you're doing.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: if_then_else on July 24, 2017, 08:06:58 AM
but that's half the fun.

that being: pushing an *alleged* inferior mic to the limits of what it can do vs. coasting on mics that cost thousands of dollars.

again, I'm plenty happy with tapes that sound 90% as good as several thousand dollar setups...as are the hundreds if not thousands of different folks who download my stuff.

as for the Sonics, their range is a full 20hz to 20khz. I'm not aware of many mics that exceed that range.

it's too bad their maker is a putz of immense proportions.

FWIW:
(1) Comparing some semi-decent tapes made with sub-par equipment to tapes made with top-of-the-line equipment from a less than ideal spot (or under circumstances beyond your control) is pretty pointless and reminds me of Schopenhauer's law of entropy:

"If you put a spoonful of wine in a barrel full of sewage, you get sewage. If you put a spoonful of sewage in a barrel full of wine, you get sewage."

(2) You can't beat physics (even with umpteen years of taping experience and an alleged legend status). And, yes, there are some UHF mics that go far below 20Hz or beyond 20 kHz. Actually, the Sennheiser MKH 8000 series goes from 10Hz to 60kHz. Whether you're can actually hear the difference is a completely different story.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: Moke on July 24, 2017, 09:48:43 AM
DPA 4060 acoustic sampling; no PA to be found anywhere near this music.
Yep,... that scan starts trending at 4hz, and quickly shows multiple sub-sonic peaks (not anomalies).
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: daspyknows on July 24, 2017, 09:59:39 AM
I guess you can't really tell the difference.  Is that a good thing?


Never said they were comparable to internals. The only thing comparable to internals are internals.  Sonics are imho average mics.  Not something I would choose to use if given options.  Side by side they do not compare to DPA 4061s, Schoeps, Neumans, Nak 700s and many others but yeah if you are in the perfect spot with Sonics and in the men's room or back corner with better mics you should get a better recording with Sonics.   Personally, I don't record from a location like that either.  Stealth taping is all about sacrifices.  I am not into sacrificing my mics beyond Schoeps or the location I tape from wherever possible.  I am willing to sacrifice using a babynbox versus an nbox platinum if I fail getting in the first try but that is it.  Placement is a bit of a crapshoot given its stealth and sound of venue beyond any of our control.


huh?

I've pulled recordings with the Sonics in the 300 level that sound like they were recorded from the 10th row, sans the 'geese'.

or, placement is not a crapshoot at all, IF you know what you're doing.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: daspyknows on July 24, 2017, 10:07:52 AM
Let's let others decide.  Post yours and I will post mine and how about a poll?   Let others decide.

Yes, I do have my opinion and you have yours.  If I thought I could make a better recording from the upper levels monkeying around with DR-2D I would do that.  In "my opinion" a Schoeps recording from the sweet spot sounds better than an internal mic recording from ANYWHERE in the venue.


My Schoeps MK4 caps are 25 years old and sure hold their own.  I have a friend's pair of new MK4's and will be doing an A/B very soon.  The Sonic Studios are entry level stealth mics, nothing more.


yeth dathpy, we *get* that all stealth mics are "entry level mics".....***in your opinion***.


I'd be surprised if my Ben Harper show tomorrow doesn't smoke all of your BH recordings.

again, because I'm pretty well versed in mic placement.





[/quote]
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: nak700s on July 24, 2017, 01:37:28 PM
Don't get me wrong, I should have been named Will, because where there's a will, there's a way.  I always got my stuff in, no matter the size or the metal detectors...I can write a book, believe me!  Nowadays though, they aren't looking for tapers as much as they're looking for bombs, guns, etc.  We live in a different world.  Not everyone is as capable as we are.

You got it.  I was in London for Eric Clapton when Manchester bombing hit.  Did we leave gear home?  No we stepped up our game and got everything in.

We're tapers...that's what we do!   :coolguy:
I'd love to get a copy of that recording, Clapton's a personal favorite.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: daspyknows on July 24, 2017, 02:35:26 PM
Don't get me wrong, I should have been named Will, because where there's a will, there's a way.  I always got my stuff in, no matter the size or the metal detectors...I can write a book, believe me!  Nowadays though, they aren't looking for tapers as much as they're looking for bombs, guns, etc.  We live in a different world.  Not everyone is as capable as we are.

You got it.  I was in London for Eric Clapton when Manchester bombing hit.  Did we leave gear home?  No we stepped up our game and got everything in.

We're tapers...that's what we do!   :coolguy:
I'd love to get a copy of that recording, Clapton's a personal favorite.

Here you go.  In kick down section thread.     

http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=182321.0
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: nak700s on July 24, 2017, 02:52:01 PM
 :yack: :yack: :yack:

I don't even know how to quote as many of the comments I'd like to in one reply...and I'm not going to try.  People, people. people, we are all connected within a wonderful community that enjoys preserving live music in the best quality that we are both able to, based on our economic condition, as well as our knowledge and preference for various sonic differences.  Although we all enjoy doing the same thing, we all have our own ways of doing things that yield different results.  The important thing is, that we are happy with our own results.  If we choose to put it out there for others to download and enjoy, that's fantastic, but to judge the 'enjoyment' of others based on them downloading our recordings doesn't mean we are taping gods, it means they like our recordings, are creatures of habit, or simply don't have or know of, better sources.  Simply put, they may not know good sound if it bit them in the ass.  However, if they are happy with it, isn't that all that really matters?

We are an opinionated lot, there's no question about that, and I am no different than the rest of you.  I've been recording live music for approximately 35 years and feel I know a thing or two about it.  I have experimented with location, and every configuration of equipment available to me that I could.  It's called a learning process.  That doesn't make me any more of an authority over anyone else here, but it does give me some insight.  Like all of you, my goal was to get to a point where I am happy with my equipment and know how to use it in a multitude of recording situations.  I have done this to my satisfaction.  The thing is, so have many others here, and they will defend their position (equipment & technique) until the cows come home.  I think we can all agree on that last point, can't we?

These things being said, this thread, however entertaining I find it to be, is spinning in a circle with no end in sight.  The same things are being reiterated over and over.  Why, because some people believe that internal mics, or Sonic Studio mics, or Church Audio mics are just as good, better, or suck compared to real microphones I mean full size, "high quality", or expensive mics.  Well, I've got news for ya'll, no matter how misguided some folks may be, what they are doing is right for them.  They don't want to be convinced otherwise, and I don't blame them.  If they are, they would have been wrong for a long time, or simply become unhappy with all they have recorded.  Live and let live.  The original poster had a question, that I think at this point, he got way more than he bargained for.  However, he did get a lot of food for thought and can make a decision based on all of our knowledge.  That's what these forums are all about, right?  I know I've asked many question when I've need other opinions or information...and I'm grateful for those who were kind enough to take the time to help.

I have nothing to close with here, but I wrote so much, I felt there should be a closing paragraph...

 :smash:
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: nak700s on July 24, 2017, 03:32:53 PM
Don't get me wrong, I should have been named Will, because where there's a will, there's a way.  I always got my stuff in, no matter the size or the metal detectors...I can write a book, believe me!  Nowadays though, they aren't looking for tapers as much as they're looking for bombs, guns, etc.  We live in a different world.  Not everyone is as capable as we are.

You got it.  I was in London for Eric Clapton when Manchester bombing hit.  Did we leave gear home?  No we stepped up our game and got everything in.

We're tapers...that's what we do!   :coolguy:
I'd love to get a copy of that recording, Clapton's a personal favorite.

Here you go.  In kick down section thread.     

http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=182321.0

Thank you :-)
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: daspyknows on July 24, 2017, 04:09:05 PM
Don't get me wrong, I should have been named Will, because where there's a will, there's a way.  I always got my stuff in, no matter the size or the metal detectors...I can write a book, believe me!  Nowadays though, they aren't looking for tapers as much as they're looking for bombs, guns, etc.  We live in a different world.  Not everyone is as capable as we are.

You got it.  I was in London for Eric Clapton when Manchester bombing hit.  Did we leave gear home?  No we stepped up our game and got everything in.


We're tapers...that's what we do!   :coolguy:
I'd love to get a copy of that recording, Clapton's a personal favorite.

Here you go.  In kick down section thread.     

http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=182321.0

Thank you :-)

You are welcome.  2nd night best imho because I had the best location.  First night too close and last night a bit further back and off center.  Scooter123 also ran the 3 shows.  We sat side by side first night, 2nd night he was a bit further back and 3rd night had the better seat (2 seats from where I recorded night 2).  Both recorded with same rigs.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: acidjack on July 24, 2017, 05:58:42 PM
utterly untrue and laughable.

CSB's are an utter joke of a mic, you have to be 10 ft. from the stack to pull anything usable.

CA, again, SHODDY MATERIALS that BREAK. why anyone would rely on them, I've no idea.

keep telling yourself that to feel better if you wish, but it's like comparing a Subaru Legacy (Sonics) to a Kia or a Yugo (CSB and CA, respectively).

they'll all get you where you're going, but which of the 3 would *you* pick if you were renting?

It's especially funny when you try to pick a fight when someone is at least partly agreeing with you. I was responding to Daspy's comment in which he more or less said they were closer to internals. IMHO Sonics are much better than internals and the others I mentioned (CA and CSB). While Sonics and CSBs are based on the same $2 Panasonic capsule, the Sonics IMHO sound much, much better.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: bombdiggity on July 24, 2017, 07:33:41 PM

Well, I've got news for ya'll, no matter how misguided some folks may be, what they are doing is right for them.  They don't want to be convinced otherwise, and I don't blame them.  If they are, they would have been wrong for a long time, or simply become unhappy with all they have recorded. 


 :smash:

Sold to the man with the 700's... 
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: perks on July 24, 2017, 08:26:41 PM


Here you go.  In kick down section thread.     

http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=182321.0

Easily a full 11% better than any internal recording I've heard. Well done. You must know that taper trick to point the mics towards the PA. ;-)
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger on July 25, 2017, 12:10:07 PM

(1) Comparing some semi-decent tapes made with sub-par equipment to tapes made with top-of-the-line equipment from a less than ideal spot (or under circumstances beyond your control) is pretty pointless and reminds me of Schopenhauer's law of entropy:

(2) Whether you're can actually hear the difference is a completely different story.




1. http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=182924.msg2235302#msg2235302




2. 20-20 is all the human ear can discern.

so anything "better than that" is pointless.




I guess you can't really tell the difference.  Is that a good thing?



having recorded hundreds of shows from both areas, pretty sure I know what I'm talking about.



Let's let others decide.  Post yours and I will post mine and how about a poll?   Let others decide.

Yes, I do have my opinion and you have yours.  If I thought I could make a better recording from the upper levels monkeying around with DR-2D I would do that.  In "my opinion" a Schoeps recording from the sweet spot sounds better than an internal mic recording from ANYWHERE in the venue.




mine will get more snatches than yours, then you'll blame geography.

I did nail it, btw.

I've heard your thin, sterile captures.

will even post a sample to save you the trouble of having to download it.

and you *could* make an *equal* recording (I've never said that internals were better-than), if you had the brains.

clearly, you do not.

were you the "parent of the year", or was that Sloan?

perhaps you should focus on that instead of taping a bunch of dead, bloated crap.

I get all you oldhead bluehairs mixed up, so if it wasn't your kid in "wilderness camp" (we *all* know what that  means), then my apologies.




:yack: :yack: :yack:

I don't even know how to quote as many of the comments I'd like to in one reply...and I'm not going to try.  People, people. people, we are all connected within a wonderful community that enjoys preserving live music in the best quality that we are both able to, based on our economic condition, as well as our knowledge and preference for various sonic differences.  Although we all enjoy doing the same thing, we all have our own ways of doing things that yield different results.  The important thing is, that we are happy with our own results.  If we choose to put it out there for others to download and enjoy, that's fantastic, but to judge the 'enjoyment' of others based on them downloading our recordings doesn't mean we are taping gods, it means they like our recordings, are creatures of habit, or simply don't have or know of, better sources.  Simply put, they may not know good sound if it bit them in the ass.  However, if they are happy with it, isn't that all that really matters?

We are an opinionated lot, there's no question about that, and I am no different than the rest of you.  I've been recording live music for approximately 35 years and feel I know a thing or two about it.  I have experimented with location, and every configuration of equipment available to me that I could.  It's called a learning process.  That doesn't make me any more of an authority over anyone else here, but it does give me some insight.  Like all of you, my goal was to get to a point where I am happy with my equipment and know how to use it in a multitude of recording situations.  I have done this to my satisfaction.  The thing is, so have many others here, and they will defend their position (equipment & technique) until the cows come home.  I think we can all agree on that last point, can't we?

These things being said, this thread, however entertaining I find it to be, is spinning in a circle with no end in sight.  The same things are being reiterated over and over.  Why, because some people believe that internal mics, or Sonic Studio mics, or Church Audio mics are just as good, better, or suck compared to real microphones I mean full size, "high quality", or expensive mics.  Well, I've got news for ya'll, no matter how misguided some folks may be, what they are doing is right for them.  They don't want to be convinced otherwise, and I don't blame them.  If they are, they would have been wrong for a long time, or simply become unhappy with all they have recorded.  Live and let live.  The original poster had a question, that I think at this point, he got way more than he bargained for.  However, he did get a lot of food for thought and can make a decision based on all of our knowledge.  That's what these forums are all about, right?  I know I've asked many question when I've need other opinions or information...and I'm grateful for those who were kind enough to take the time to help.

I have nothing to close with here, but I wrote so much, I felt there should be a closing paragraph...

 :smash:

quoted it all as it's wise, sage advice.


here's where I'm coming from:

when I see 8 people jump on an internals thread in the first day, and all 8 (an arabitrary number) tell the person (usually new to the game) that what they are doing is wrong and that they need to buy an expensive setup to obtain something even usable, I take great umbrage to that, as I *have* done it on the cheap, and I have made numerous fantastic-sounding recordings....with a deck that hit the market at $150  5-6 years ago (I think, maybe a bit more).

or, it's as if folks are saying internal mics are like the condenser hand-held walkman mics of the 80's.

if I tried and failed miserably, I'd be the first to admit it and say so.

the R-09 internals ***are shitty microphones***...waaaaaaaay too hot, minimal lo-end (or distorted lo-end), and not a very pleasurable internal.

the Zoom H4n (I also own one), isn't much better, BUT it has 100 "level settings"...the R-09 only has 30.

the DR-2D, however, has bascially 140 (lo/med/high gain, each with 100 levels per, however, 0 on med gain is like 20 on lo gain, just as 0 on high is like 20 on medium/40 on low), or 160 of the settings "overlap" the others (pretty sure each attentuation is -20dB, if I'm saying that right).

and, the gain also seems to affect the brightness.

AND if mics are plugged in, that also affects the gain setting (only ever used "high" with the Sonics, due to the lo-cut being "permanently taped into" the mics due to the short I isolated)


all that said, 140 sensitivity levels is a LOT more choice than the 30 in the Edirol, AND the mics in the DR-2D, to these ears, sound rich and full, and occasionally outperform the Sonics.

that's just how it is.

pretty sure the Black Mountain and Mulvey links I posted are on archive/etree (I think it was you who asked)



It's especially funny when you try to pick a fight when someone is at least partly agreeing with you. I was responding to Daspy's comment in which he more or less said they were closer to internals. IMHO Sonics are much better than internals and the others I mentioned (CA and CSB). While Sonics and CSBs are based on the same $2 Panasonic capsule, the Sonics IMHO sound much, much better.

daspy will try to say anything to get a rise out of me, he backs up his insults with nothing of substance, which is what makes him so laughable.

your recordings are actually pretty good, the few I've heard...as are edtyre's.

I'm not 100% anti-mic stand (see what i said about Datfly in the link at the top of this post); it's more the attitudes of the bulk of their owners/users that are particularly grating.




Easily a full 11% better than any internal recording I've heard. Well done. You must know that taper trick to point the mics towards the PA. ;-)


why anyone would bother taping/listening to 2017 Clapton/Waters/et al I've no idea.

Clapton's last "amazing" playing was with Cream, he's been coasting ever since...one of the most overrated players I've ever heard, output-wise the last 40+ years.

the junk took his skills away quick.



what's the difference between a 4 year old and a bag of heroin?

Clapton won't drop the heroin.


#CHECKaaaaaaaaaaaandMATE











Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger on July 25, 2017, 12:14:04 PM
one more Clapton comment (as I don't feel like editing)

instead of wasting time watching a sad old man go thru the motions, GO TAPE THE MARCUS KING BAND

that cat is the real deal, and you'll be much more entertained for a fraction of the cost.

kinda like recording with a deck with only internal mics...... :snickers:
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: daspyknows on July 25, 2017, 02:01:29 PM
one more Clapton comment (as I don't feel like editing)

instead of wasting time watching a sad old man go thru the motions, GO TAPE THE MARCUS KING BAND

that cat is the real deal, and you'll be much more entertained for a fraction of the cost.

kinda like recording with a deck with only internal mics...... :snickers:

You are too hung up about saving money.  That I can fly to Europe with friends to record Clapton is like owning an "elitist rig"  Either you can do it or you can't.  Yes kinda like recording with a deck with only internal mics if thats all you choose to do...... :snickers:
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger on July 25, 2017, 02:35:22 PM

You are too hung up about saving money.  That I can fly to Europe with friends to record Clapton is like owning an "elitist rig"  Either you can do it or you can't.  Yes kinda like recording with a deck with only internal mics if thats all you choose to do...... :snickers:

if I was so 'hung up on money', why the hell would I fly out of state so often for shows?
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: daspyknows on July 25, 2017, 03:51:06 PM

You are too hung up about saving money.  That I can fly to Europe with friends to record Clapton is like owning an "elitist rig"  Either you can do it or you can't.  Yes kinda like recording with a deck with only internal mics if thats all you choose to do...... :snickers:

if I was so 'hung up on money', why the hell would I fly out of state so often for shows?

Most of the tapers on here fly out of state or drive out of state for shows.   Many buy tickets too instead of begging for freebies. 
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger on July 25, 2017, 10:03:44 PM

You are too hung up about saving money.  That I can fly to Europe with friends to record Clapton is like owning an "elitist rig"  Either you can do it or you can't.  Yes kinda like recording with a deck with only internal mics if thats all you choose to do...... :snickers:

if I was so 'hung up on money', why the hell would I fly out of state so often for shows?

Most of the tapers on here fly out of state or drive out of state for shows.   Many buy tickets too instead of begging for freebies.


I don't "beg".

artists are happy with the quality of what I do, and compensate me accordingly.

and that matters oh-so-much-more than the opine of one who has to send their kid to wilderness camp

shit, my father helped me kill 3 moose, 2 caribou and a bear before age 16, or, REAL wilderness camp *with him*, vs. away from him.

he didn't farm me out because he failed on numerous fronts as a father.

do you even take your kid to shows?
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger on July 25, 2017, 11:54:10 PM
That I can fly to Europe with friends to record Clapton is like owning an "elitist rig"  Either you can do it or you can't. 


huh?

I've taped shows in right at 40 of the 50 states (maybe 39, maybe 41, I know Hawaii, every Pacific and Mountain state, and the only central ones I haven't are North Dakota and Nebraska....as for the East Coast, there's a bunch (6-8 at least) in the NE I've not been to or taped in (have NY, PA and VA masters for sure, does DC count?) or, I could make it 48-out-of-50 in a bit over a week. even did one in Canada, I think.
 

simply put, the NE is kinda like Europe for me.
#NODESIRETOGOTHERE

and seeing Clapton even less so. have had 4 chances to see him (twice free), and passed them all up, easily at that.

see, it's not an either/or, "you can or you can't" type scenario.....


as just like taping....there's MORE than "one way to do it".


you silly rabbit you.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: Moke on July 26, 2017, 12:40:31 AM
(https://media.giphy.com/media/LZMKpFobagNsQ/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger on July 26, 2017, 01:25:31 AM


Most of the tapers on here fly out of state or drive out of state for shows.   Many buy tickets too instead of begging for freebies.

and do most tapers pay an average of $400 just to get to Seattle?


not to mention your "most tapers here" comment is pretty bunk.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: morst on July 26, 2017, 01:36:27 AM
Interesting perspective, thanks for the comprehensive rundown. I doubt many of us have used that many different "shirt pocket" size setups.




the R-09 internals ***are shitty microphones***...waaaaaaaay too hot, minimal lo-end (or distorted lo-end), and not a very pleasurable internal.

the Zoom H4n (I also own one), isn't much better, BUT it has 100 "level settings"...the R-09 only has 30.

the DR-2D, however, has bascially 140 (lo/med/high gain, each with 100 levels per, however, 0 on med gain is like 20 on lo gain, just as 0 on high is like 20 on medium/40 on low), or 160 of the settings "overlap" the others (pretty sure each attentuation is -20dB, if I'm saying that right).


I think you might be saying that right. Don't know if it's correct, but I think I get what you mean.

Quote

and, the gain also seems to affect the brightness. {VERY INTERESTING (morst note)}

AND if mics are plugged in, that also affects the gain setting (only ever used "high" with the Sonics, due to the lo-cut being "permanently taped into" the mics due to the short I isolated)


all that said, 140 sensitivity levels is a LOT more choice than the 30 in the Edirol, AND the mics in the DR-2D, to these ears, sound rich and full, and occasionally outperform the Sonics.

140 clicks versus 30 clicks is one thing, but it's more a question of whether click 130 can amplify birdcalls better than click 27 on the other, while still recording jet planes or fireworks on click 5 or 10? Unless you only record birdcalls, or only record jet planes, or some such... To all, their own.

Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger on July 26, 2017, 05:37:39 AM
Interesting perspective, thanks for the comprehensive rundown. I doubt many of us have used that many different "shirt pocket" size setups.





the R-09 internals ***are shitty microphones***...waaaaaaaay too hot, minimal lo-end (or distorted lo-end), and not a very pleasurable internal.

the Zoom H4n (I also own one), isn't much better, BUT it has 100 "level settings"...the R-09 only has 30.

the DR-2D, however, has bascially 140 (lo/med/high gain, each with 100 levels per, however, 0 on med gain is like 20 on lo gain, just as 0 on high is like 20 on medium/40 on low), or 160 of the settings "overlap" the others (pretty sure each attentuation is -20dB, if I'm saying that right).


I think you might be saying that right. Don't know if it's correct, but I think I get what you mean.

Quote

and, the gain also seems to affect the brightness. {VERY INTERESTING (morst note)}

AND if mics are plugged in, that also affects the gain setting (only ever used "high" with the Sonics, due to the lo-cut being "permanently taped into" the mics due to the short I isolated)


all that said, 140 sensitivity levels is a LOT more choice than the 30 in the Edirol, AND the mics in the DR-2D, to these ears, sound rich and full, and occasionally outperform the Sonics.

140 clicks versus 30 clicks is one thing, but it's more a question of whether click 130 can amplify birdcalls better than click 27 on the other, while still recording jet planes or fireworks on click 5 or 10? Unless you only record birdcalls, or only record jet planes, or some such... To all, their own.

to clarify: gain seems to affect brightness only when the Sonics are plugged in.  or, the internals are very "even sounding" during playback, 9 times out of 10 10khz is bouncing just as pretty as 63/98hz.

or, a pretty full range (40hz and 12.5/16khz also bounce, just not as dramatic)

the Sonics, however, seem to come out bassier on low, pretty even on medium, and really bright on high (though with the levels turned down)

also, max levels with the internals on medium gain is 75 (for 'hard' music), and 68-72 is a great range to get to -4 or -6dB peaks

with the Sonics plugged in, however, I can jack the levels to 98 out of 100 on medium, and still only peak at -10 to -12db, which *does* allow more headroom should one choose to use some EQ.

the Ben Harper is up. again, I truly think it sounds fantastic:

http://www.dimeadozen.org/torrents-details.php?id=597257


if anything, bump your bass knob a tiny bit to the left (down) if the rumble doesn't suit your ears.

no other frequencies over 400hz were touched.


and the last part of your post....68 to 72 on med gain, 88 to 92 on low (again, ONLY with the internals)

or, yeah, I only use 8 of the 'clicks' (out of 130) 90% of the time....with the internals.

with the Sonics, almost always between 95 and 98 on med....occasionally 100.


Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: morst on July 26, 2017, 11:07:47 PM
Sounds like not much bass is getting through on high gain due to low levels. If you record something quiet like an acoustic guitar on high gain, does it lack bass with a higher record level than you would have for something louder that you'd record on the high setting?

I'm curious why the gain setting would affect the sound so much, but I guess you can choose to use it as an effect if you know what to expect.

to clarify: gain seems to affect brightness only when the Sonics are plugged in.  or, the internals are very "even sounding" during playback, 9 times out of 10 10khz is bouncing just as pretty as 63/98hz.

or, a pretty full range (40hz and 12.5/16khz also bounce, just not as dramatic)

the Sonics, however, seem to come out bassier on low, pretty even on medium, and really bright on high (though with the levels turned down)


also, max levels with the internals on medium gain is 75 (for 'hard' music), and 68-72 is a great range to get to -4 or -6dB peaks

with the Sonics plugged in, however, I can jack the levels to 98 out of 100 on medium, and still only peak at -10 to -12db, which *does* allow more headroom should one choose to use some EQ.

the Ben Harper is up. again, I truly think it sounds fantastic:

http://www.dimeadozen.org/torrents-details.php?id=597257


if anything, bump your bass knob a tiny bit to the left (down) if the rumble doesn't suit your ears.

no other frequencies over 400hz were touched.


and the last part of your post....68 to 72 on med gain, 88 to 92 on low (again, ONLY with the internals)

or, yeah, I only use 8 of the 'clicks' (out of 130) 90% of the time....with the internals.

with the Sonics, almost always between 95 and 98 on med....occasionally 100.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger on July 26, 2017, 11:37:23 PM
Sounds like not much bass is getting through on high gain due to low levels. If you record something quiet like an acoustic guitar on high gain, does it lack bass with a higher record level than you would have for something louder that you'd record on the high setting?

I'm curious why the gain setting would affect the sound so much, but I guess you can choose to use it as an effect if you know what to expect.

to clarify: gain seems to affect brightness only when the Sonics are plugged in.  or, the internals are very "even sounding" during playback, 9 times out of 10 10khz is bouncing just as pretty as 63/98hz.

or, a pretty full range (40hz and 12.5/16khz also bounce, just not as dramatic)

the Sonics, however, seem to come out bassier on low, pretty even on medium, and really bright on high (though with the levels turned down)


also, max levels with the internals on medium gain is 75 (for 'hard' music), and 68-72 is a great range to get to -4 or -6dB peaks

with the Sonics plugged in, however, I can jack the levels to 98 out of 100 on medium, and still only peak at -10 to -12db, which *does* allow more headroom should one choose to use some EQ.

the Ben Harper is up. again, I truly think it sounds fantastic:

http://www.dimeadozen.org/torrents-details.php?id=597257


if anything, bump your bass knob a tiny bit to the left (down) if the rumble doesn't suit your ears.

no other frequencies over 400hz were touched.


and the last part of your post....68 to 72 on med gain, 88 to 92 on low (again, ONLY with the internals)

or, yeah, I only use 8 of the 'clicks' (out of 130) 90% of the time....with the internals.

with the Sonics, almost always between 95 and 98 on med....occasionally 100.


not really sure if it's in conjunction with the lo-cut on the Sonics...but the internals are *always* bright, even on low.

with the Sonics, low gain won't let you get much above -20dB (wayyy too low). on medium, cranked to 100, it may bounce up to -10, -8, depending on distance from the stage.

only on high gain can I get any "flex", or I don't have to max out to 100.

internals, it's simple

never used high (mainly because of clappers, they'll always override the music on high)

med: 68 to 72 will give you levels between -8 and -4

low: 88 to 92 will give you the same levels, but is much, much better for heavier music.


med is like for the Natalie Merchant/blues/Ann Wilson kinda stuff. low is for Testament/Tool/Pearl Jam/etc...unless yer in the 300's, then bump it up to medium (unless you have too many screamers or talkers)
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger on July 27, 2017, 12:37:03 AM
a crappy 2 dollar Panasonic mic capsule Ben Harper show already has equalled, make that exceeded snatches of your fancy-schmancy microphone recording....in less than 24 hours daspy.



again, your recordings aren't as good you think they are, nor are mine as bad as you say they are.


that much is certain.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: Limit35 on July 27, 2017, 01:17:46 AM
a crappy 2 dollar Panasonic mic capsule Ben Harper show already has equalled, make that exceeded snatches of your fancy-schmancy microphone recording....in less than 24 hours daspy.



again, your recordings aren't as good you think they are, nor are mine as bad as you say they are.

Which source are you referring to as the "fancy-schmancy" one?
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger on July 27, 2017, 08:23:52 AM
a crappy 2 dollar Panasonic mic capsule Ben Harper show already has equalled, make that exceeded snatches of your fancy-schmancy microphone recording....in less than 24 hours daspy.



again, your recordings aren't as good you think they are, nor are mine as bad as you say they are.

Which source are you referring to as the "fancy-schmancy" one?


daspys schweppes bottlerockets ben harper on dime, two months or so back.


or whatever foo-foo thingamabob he swears by.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: Brian Skalinder on July 27, 2017, 09:54:31 AM
a crappy 2 dollar Panasonic mic capsule Ben Harper show already has equalled, make that exceeded snatches of your fancy-schmancy microphone recording....in less than 24 hours daspy.

Which source are you referring to as the "fancy-schmancy" one?

Limit35 -- furry equates # of downloads with quality.  You should decide for yourself.  From another thread...

For those looking and not wanting to sift through the entire back and forth between daspy and furry, here are the two recordings they've provided.  Both daspy and furry are very opinionated, but you all should decide for yourselves.  Personally, I have a very strong preference for one over the other -- and find the 'other' painful to listen to for more than a short sample -- but everyone should decide individually which they prefer:

https://we.tl/hnxhnrM8h9
https://we.tl/eKlmn3vcjq
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: Limit35 on July 27, 2017, 02:02:15 PM
a crappy 2 dollar Panasonic mic capsule Ben Harper show already has equalled, make that exceeded snatches of your fancy-schmancy microphone recording....in less than 24 hours daspy.

Which source are you referring to as the "fancy-schmancy" one?

Limit35 -- furry equates # of downloads with quality.  You should decide for yourself.  From another thread...


Yeah, I just downloaded a couple files from the past few shows on dime. The Mk5 source from 7/06 and Mk41 from 5/27  sound pretty damn good to me. While the sonic studios source phases a lot and really needs some EQ. Should have known.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger on July 29, 2017, 04:39:35 AM
a crappy 2 dollar Panasonic mic capsule Ben Harper show already has equalled, make that exceeded snatches of your fancy-schmancy microphone recording....in less than 24 hours daspy.

Which source are you referring to as the "fancy-schmancy" one?

Limit35 -- furry equates # of downloads with quality.  You should decide for yourself.  From another thread...

For those looking and not wanting to sift through the entire back and forth between daspy and furry, here are the two recordings they've provided.  Both daspy and furry are very opinionated, but you all should decide for yourselves.  Personally, I have a very strong preference for one over the other -- and find the 'other' painful to listen to for more than a short sample -- but everyone should decide individually which they prefer:

https://we.tl/hnxhnrM8h9
https://we.tl/eKlmn3vcjq


well when you look at all the work that daspy put into his 'story', and the responses compared to mine, I'd have to say the fans of my recordings (and what I record) care a little more.

it's hard to admit that mic-stands and $1000 stealth mics really aren't all that...especially to those heavily invested in such.


but there is no doubt that an excellent pull can be obtained with internals. I posted 5 examples, and probably have 100 more.


if one can't figure out how to do so, that's on them, not me.


a crappy 2 dollar Panasonic mic capsule Ben Harper show already has equalled, make that exceeded snatches of your fancy-schmancy microphone recording....in less than 24 hours daspy.

Which source are you referring to as the "fancy-schmancy" one?

Limit35 -- furry equates # of downloads with quality.  You should decide for yourself.  From another thread...


Yeah, I just downloaded a couple files from the past few shows on dime. The Mk5 source from 7/06 and Mk41 from 5/27  sound pretty damn good to me. While the sonic studios source phases a lot and really needs some EQ. Should have known.

it was EQ'd, and has a fuller range than what daspy offered as his representative recording.  any basic parametric equalizer will confirm this.

if one is into compression, then daspy is their man!


ok, time to get back to humpin' the gal from Indy....you kids have fun comparing serial numbers.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: Brian Skalinder on July 29, 2017, 10:28:29 PM
I'd have to say the fans of my recordings (and what I record) care a little more.

it's hard to admit that mic-stands and $1000 stealth mics really aren't all that...especially to those heavily invested in such.

but there is no doubt that an excellent pull can be obtained with internals. I posted 5 examples, and probably have 100 more.

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'.

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/_uHBFiAnpZs/maxresdefault.jpg)

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!   :cheers:
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: vanark on July 30, 2017, 12:32:13 AM
I really don't understand the EQ vs. no EQ argument. If the result is good, who cares how you got there? And, yes, good is subjective so everyone will have a slightly different opinions if it is somewhere in the good range.

I'm not a fan of the shenanigans that have gone on in the thread from both sides, but this argument that you can only compare the raw recordings from the same location is nonsense. If furbie can get a good recording using his gear and post methods, that seems to support his argument that you don't need a set of $1000 mics to get a good recording. You may not like it as well as the $1000 recording, but his argument is that it is good enough and that many people enjoy the recordings. Now, he says a lot of other things, too, that makes it hard to swallow this argument.

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.

And, another example to consider.

https://archive.org/details/ttb2016-12-02.ca11.flac24

An open taping band - Tedeschi Trucks Band. I could have brought my "elitist" rig, but it wasn't going to work. My seats were less than ideal (way back in the orchestra, under the balcony). Seats are very tight in this old theater and I was with friends. The only way I was recording was to use my low profile rig. My buddies didn't even know I was taping. Yes, there is some phasing, but the sound quality is at least good enough (after some EQ) and more importantly, it is the only recording circulating of the show. Definitely listenable.

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.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger on July 30, 2017, 03:20:43 AM
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!   :cheers:

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=597257



there 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.

Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: anr on July 30, 2017, 03:48:58 AM
Quote
www.dimeadozen.org/torrents-details.php?id=597257


My tuppence.  That's a pretty good capture.  But the crowd noise would have made me delete it.  Drives me nuts.  But that is why you put up samples, because I'm sure others aren't as sensitive.  (It follows that I believe there is no point providing links here to Dime torrents that don't have samples).

I collect recordings of one particular singer/guitarist.  Due to this crowd issue, I find I am continually chasing a recording I can comfortably listen to (as distinct from an accurate recording of the show).  By far the best recording I have, out of over 300, over a 35 year period, was done with an Edirol RO-9, with internals, placed on the stage lip.  Got lucky with the basic sound, but it was a conscious attempt to eliminate the crowd.  There's far more to it than just what gear you use, as many before me have pointed out.

Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger on July 30, 2017, 04:24:45 AM
Quote
www.dimeadozen.org/torrents-details.php?id=597257


My tuppence.  That's a pretty good capture.  But the crowd noise would have made me delete it.  Drives me nuts.  But that is why you put up samples, because I'm sure others aren't as sensitive.  (It follows that I believe there is no point providing links here to Dime torrents that don't have samples).

I collect recordings of one particular singer/guitarist.  Due to this crowd issue, I find I am continually chasing a recording I can comfortably listen to (as distinct from an accurate recording of the show).  By far the best recording I have, out of over 300, over a 35 year period, was done with an Edirol RO-9, with internals, placed on the stage lip.  Got lucky with the basic sound, but it was a conscious attempt to eliminate the crowd.  There's far more to it than just what gear you use, as many before me have pointed out.


understood, I accepted long ago that this is 'live' music, and that I'd have to accept some crowd noise over the course of time. I now call it "flavor", and over the years, there are some doozies. to the point I wanna make a 2 cd set of my nose getting broken at White Zombie '96 (unintentional, at that, the guy had his back to me)/seats at '99 Metallica Anchorage 'not exisitng' when I go there/getting tossed from The Cult '95 Tempe for lighting up a fattie, then lettind down the then-long hair and sneaking back in to finish taping/etc

you seem to get another thing I'm saying:  that being; 'positioning' is a good 80% of the battle.

the Ben Harper torrent is far from my best capture, but he and his band pretty much lit it up, and for what little was invested in taping it (a $60 ticket and an extra day rental car, though the trip was based around Ben), it came out plenty good for these ears.




and you never know, I may have recorded that artist..... ;)
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: daspyknows on July 30, 2017, 04:33:29 AM
a crappy 2 dollar Panasonic mic capsule Ben Harper show already has equalled, make that exceeded snatches of your fancy-schmancy microphone recording....in less than 24 hours daspy.

Which source are you referring to as the "fancy-schmancy" one?

Limit35 -- furry equates # of downloads with quality.  You should decide for yourself.  From another thread...

For those looking and not wanting to sift through the entire back and forth between daspy and furry, here are the two recordings they've provided.  Both daspy and furry are very opinionated, but you all should decide for yourselves.  Personally, I have a very strong preference for one over the other -- and find the 'other' painful to listen to for more than a short sample -- but everyone should decide individually which they prefer:

https://we.tl/hnxhnrM8h9
https://we.tl/eKlmn3vcjq


well when you look at all the work that daspy put into his 'story', and the responses compared to mine, I'd have to say the fans of my recordings (and what I record) care a little more.

it's hard to admit that mic-stands and $1000 stealth mics really aren't all that...especially to those heavily invested in such.


but there is no doubt that an excellent pull can be obtained with internals. I posted 5 examples, and probably have 100 more.


if one can't figure out how to do so, that's on them, not me.


a crappy 2 dollar Panasonic mic capsule Ben Harper show already has equalled, make that exceeded snatches of your fancy-schmancy microphone recording....in less than 24 hours daspy.

Which source are you referring to as the "fancy-schmancy" one?

Limit35 -- furry equates # of downloads with quality.  You should decide for yourself.  From another thread...


Yeah, I just downloaded a couple files from the past few shows on dime. The Mk5 source from 7/06 and Mk41 from 5/27  sound pretty damn good to me. While the sonic studios source phases a lot and really needs some EQ. Should have known.

it was EQ'd, and has a fuller range than what daspy offered as his representative recording.  any basic parametric equalizer will confirm this.

if one is into compression, then daspy is their man!


ok, time to get back to humpin' the gal from Indy....you kids have fun comparing serial numbers.

This sounds like who had more people at their inauguration.  Ears and eyes don't lie.

Here is a raw sample from Ben Harper tonight at Robert Mondavi Winery in St. Helena California.  Small outdoor venue similar to Furby's Moose whatever venue.  I guess it holds about 800 to 1,000 people.  I was in the 7th row a seat of dead center (25 feet appx) 

https://we.tl/DzWDpwSFqb

Since furby is to chicken to undertake Nak 700's comparison this will have to do.   This is not what I would call excellent like all of furby's internal mics recordings, as there are some issues but it's a decent representation of what I heard tonight.

Just a point about compression.  Obviously furby has NO clue what he is talking about. It is also not meant to be a representative recording of Ben Harper, but just the most recent comp.  I am not trying to cherry pick my best recording to compare, but just any recording. It is a stealth festival recording which will sound much different than a small intimate venue.  Now we have a closer comp.   Can't wait to hear what our resident aural expert has to say.   I have missed fake news the past few days.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: vanark on July 30, 2017, 09:11:39 AM

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.
[snip]

and thanks for the kind words, btw....a lot of the misogyny is an act.....promise.

Furbie's message can get lost among the arrogance and misogyny


I think this clarifies why ... and the act wore thin at some point. I've always said most of it was an act, but it is relentless and not at all entertaining to me. The misogyny isn't funny even if you are mostly joking. I decided to reduce it with the tools I had available. I'm not going to get you to change, nor am I trying to. I didn't post, "Enough of this, I'm blocking you". I just did it. I'm surprised you even noticed, to be honest.


Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: Brian Skalinder on July 30, 2017, 12:32:45 PM
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.

Ahhh...my mistake on the Sonic's v. internals.  Nonetheless, I prefer Daspy's in this instance.  I haven't chimed in on the others because you tend to take critical feedback defensively and I didn't really have anything positive to say.  All the samples I've heard -- whether comparing against others' recordings or not -- have been underwhelming.  Not horrendous, but not particularly good, either, IMO.  But I missed the samples in the CA thread, which I'll check out -- I generally find I tend to like the sound of the CA mics and the way many put them to good use.

Again, all that said, I'm glad you and others like your recordings!

vanark -- I get what you're saying and agree wholeheartedly, and I've encountered plenty of instances in which I prefer the recording with cheaper gear v. others (though not typically furry's...yet).  Thank you for taking the time to 'translate', though I have trouble reconciling it with furry's arrogant, binary, and hyperbolic commentary.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: daspyknows on July 30, 2017, 02:02:40 PM
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.

Ahhh...my mistake on the Sonic's v. internals.  Nonetheless, I prefer Daspy's in this instance.  I haven't chimed in on the others because you tend to take critical feedback defensively and I didn't really have anything positive to say.  All the samples I've heard -- whether comparing against others' recordings or not -- have been underwhelming.  Not horrendous, but not particularly good, either, IMO.  But I missed the samples in the CA thread, which I'll check out -- I generally find I tend to like the sound of the CA mics and the way many put them to good use.

Again, all that said, I'm glad you and others like your recordings!

vanark -- I get what you're saying and agree wholeheartedly, and I've encountered plenty of instances in which I prefer the recording with cheaper gear v. others (though not typically furry's...yet).  Thank you for taking the time to 'translate', though I have trouble reconciling it with furry's arrogant, binary, and hyperbolic commentary.

I do get furby's game.  I sense similarities to another situation that affects all of us today.  I could post his recording as "mine" and he would say his is better just because he seems to have an inferiority complex he can't get past.  There is a way to settle this but he isn't man enough to take the challenge but will just call it "fake news". 

Brian,  I agree with your points spot on.  No arguments here and no issue with critical comments from peers and people who actually have useful comments, not just "arrogant, binary, and hyperbolic commentary".  That is how most oof us learn and improve techniques. 
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: vanark on July 30, 2017, 02:35:05 PM
When you go to "he isn't man enough", you lose me, daspy. You have sunk to levels you don't need to. At the end of the day, you've lost me on what argument you are trying to make here. Your recordings will likely be better in almost every instance. But, furby's recordings are likely good enough in most instances. His point is he wouldn't record if he needed $3000 in gear to do it, so he does it with the gear he has and he, and others, are happy enough. No one is going to release one of his recordings as a commercial product, but it seems the fans like them well enough, esp. when they are the only recording of a show.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: daspyknows on July 30, 2017, 02:51:33 PM
When you go to "he isn't man enough", you lose me, daspy. You have sunk to levels you don't need to. At the end of the day, you've lost me on what argument you are trying to make here. Your recordings will likely be better in almost every instance. But, furby's recordings are likely good enough in most instances. His point is he wouldn't record if he needed $3000 in gear to do it, so he does it with the gear he has and he, and others, are happy enough. No one is going to release one of his recordings as a commercial product, but it seems the fans like them well enough, esp. when they are the only recording of a show.

Sorry, but when subjected to his personal insults here and elsewhere I have had enough.  There is also a difference between good enough to satisfy his minions and his idiotic rationalization.  My basic argument is either STFU or back up your claims in a true competitive matter like suggested like Nak700.  This is like the Twitter trolls who can only spew from a keyboard but will never do anything in person. 
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: vanark on July 30, 2017, 02:56:13 PM
Sorry, but you are achieving the same level of douchenozzlery as him at this point. I don't have a horse in this race. If you don't like that, you can do something about it and stop taking his bait. He has admitted most of it is an act, to get reactions.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: daspyknows on July 30, 2017, 03:03:26 PM
Sorry, but you are achieving the same level of douchenozzlery as him at this point. I don't have a horse in this race. If you don't like that, you can do something about it and stop taking his bait. He has admitted most of it is an act, to get reactions.

Really?  So,  I should just not post anything or ignore it when he posts crap about me?  I've tried that before, doesn't work either. 
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: vanark on July 30, 2017, 03:12:04 PM
Really?  So,  I should just not post anything or ignore it when he posts crap about me?  I've tried that before, doesn't work either.

Yes, that is what you should do. Who cares what he says? Why are you allowing him to validate you and your recordngs? We all know the deal.

"Never wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig likes it."
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: acidjack on July 30, 2017, 03:41:42 PM
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.

Ahhh...my mistake on the Sonic's v. internals.  Nonetheless, I prefer Daspy's in this instance.  I haven't chimed in on the others because you tend to take critical feedback defensively and I didn't really have anything positive to say.  All the samples I've heard -- whether comparing against others' recordings or not -- have been underwhelming.  Not horrendous, but not particularly good, either, IMO.  But I missed the samples in the CA thread, which I'll check out -- I generally find I tend to like the sound of the CA mics and the way many put them to good use.

Again, all that said, I'm glad you and others like your recordings!

vanark -- I get what you're saying and agree wholeheartedly, and I've encountered plenty of instances in which I prefer the recording with cheaper gear v. others (though not typically furry's...yet).  Thank you for taking the time to 'translate', though I have trouble reconciling it with furry's arrogant, binary, and hyperbolic commentary.

I was just talking last night about some recordings I did a few years ago. Most nights I just put some Audix with CA cables on my hat and ran near a stack. One night I ran Schoeps on a stand from back by the SBD. The better recording wasn't even close... and definitely not the Schoeps. Similar to Rory's example, if the only "official" spot is grossly inferior, somebody up close with lesser gear who knows what they're doing may well take it on any given night.

Which only goes back to, if you spend the time to get the right placement, EQ properly, etc. you can make great recordings with pretty humble mics. But if you have expensive mics, you should also be doing those things, and if you are, they will be better every time than the comparable lower-end product. But yeah, Schoeps, DPA, whatever also pick up loads more of the signal, and sometimes what they pick up is not desirable for listening.... hence also why people's tapes who don't EQ and post-process correctly can be pretty bad.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: acidjack on July 30, 2017, 03:43:01 PM
Sorry, but you are achieving the same level of douchenozzlery as him at this point. I don't have a horse in this race. If you don't like that, you can do something about it and stop taking his bait. He has admitted most of it is an act, to get reactions.

Really?  So,  I should just not post anything or ignore it when he posts crap about me?  I've tried that before, doesn't work either.

There's an "ignore" function here that is really helpful to achieving your goal. I'd recommend you do that. You don't need to validate your recordings by arguing about them.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger on July 31, 2017, 09:08:45 PM
daspy, the reason I'm not "man enough" is because the rules suck right out of the gate.


you take your setup, I take mine, we tape the same show from wherever, and that's the contest.



anything else reeks of sterility and pigeonholing.


Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: daspyknows on July 31, 2017, 10:39:57 PM
daspy, the reason I'm not "man enough" is because the rules suck right out of the gate.


you take your setup, I take mine, we tape the same show from wherever, and that's the contest.



anything else reeks of sterility and pigeonholing.

What are your rules?  You say you can make better recording with your gear than me,  let's prove it.  Got hear this excuse. 
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: jbosco on August 01, 2017, 08:12:03 AM
daspy, the reason I'm not "man enough" is because the rules suck right out of the gate.


you take your setup, I take mine, we tape the same show from wherever, and that's the contest.



anything else reeks of sterility and pigeonholing.

He's actually right here, his claim has always been he can take his stuff (Sonic, internals, doesn't matter) and do his "thing" and the recording will be as good (or 90% whatever that means) as anyone's. You can't make him stand somewhere he wouldn't or not finger someone or even take away whatever he does in post, because that's all a part of his thing. Perhaps he knows that his unit can't handle X amount of low end, so he cuts it, knowing full well he's gonna add it back in post, if he can't do that, then it's not doing his thing, it's doing someone else's, he's never claimed that other methods would produce a good tape, just his own.

The only "fair" way of doing it (scientific or not) is both tapers recording the same show using whatever means they use (mics, gear, location, etc, all up to taper) and both doing what ever they do in post. Then conduct an independent poll online where the listeners have no idea as to who made the recording, the equipment used or the tapers location. Any other way would produce results slanted one way or the other.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: daspyknows on August 01, 2017, 11:10:18 AM
daspy, the reason I'm not "man enough" is because the rules suck right out of the gate.


you take your setup, I take mine, we tape the same show from wherever, and that's the contest.



anything else reeks of sterility and pigeonholing.

He's actually right here, his claim has always been he can take his stuff (Sonic, internals, doesn't matter) and do his "thing" and the recording will be as good (or 90% whatever that means) as anyone's. You can't make him stand somewhere he wouldn't or not finger someone or even take away whatever he does in post, because that's all a part of his thing. Perhaps he knows that his unit can't handle X amount of low end, so he cuts it, knowing full well he's gonna add it back in post, if he can't do that, then it's not doing his thing, it's doing someone else's, he's never claimed that other methods would produce a good tape, just his own.

The only "fair" way of doing it (scientific or not) is both tapers recording the same show using whatever means they use (mics, gear, location, etc, all up to taper) and both doing what ever they do in post. Then conduct an independent poll online where the listeners have no idea as to who made the recording, the equipment used or the tapers location. Any other way would produce results slanted one way or the other.

I'm fine with that too.  He can put as much lipstick on his recording as HE wants.   If you follow his posts that task is farmed out to others.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: nak700s on August 01, 2017, 04:24:00 PM

He's actually right here, his claim has always been he can take his stuff (Sonic, internals, doesn't matter) and do his "thing" and the recording will be as good (or 90% whatever that means) as anyone's. You can't make him stand somewhere he wouldn't or not finger someone or even take away whatever he does in post, because that's all a part of his thing. Perhaps he knows that his unit can't handle X amount of low end, so he cuts it, knowing full well he's gonna add it back in post, if he can't do that, then it's not doing his thing, it's doing someone else's, he's never claimed that other methods would produce a good tape, just his own.

The only "fair" way of doing it (scientific or not) is both tapers recording the same show using whatever means they use (mics, gear, location, etc, all up to taper) and both doing what ever they do in post. Then conduct an independent poll online where the listeners have no idea as to who made the recording, the equipment used or the tapers location. Any other way would produce results slanted one way or the other.

I disagree.  Furburger said that internals are as good or better than "expensive" microphones (yes, percentages were cited).  A true test for that is to eliminate all variables other than the actual equipment being used to record and make an accurate comparison.  Had I been able to score a ticket for tonight's Phish show (in the tapers section), I was prepared to bring 3 rigs with me to do just that.  Yes, it is all packed!  Although different set-ups than our two combatants, it would have been a fair representation for most.  I was prepared to run my regular rig (Nak 700's > SD 744T), CA-14's > CA9200 > Sony PCM-M10, and a Sony PCM-M10 using its internals, all mounted on the same stand.  It would have been a direct comparison of internals vs. 2 different externals, all other factors being equal.  After all of this arguing, I would have gladly done all the work, if for no other reason, to satisfy my own curiosity.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: Gutbucket on August 01, 2017, 04:52:34 PM
^Nah.  This isn't primarily about gear comparison, it's a taper cage-match throw-down!  A battle of styles, methods and means, mostly.

May the best recording win, each taper doing what they do the way they do it, with the results judged not by popularity elsewhere or by any other measure except blind comparison vote by their collective taper peers here at TS where the row has been sown.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: acidjack on August 01, 2017, 04:56:25 PM
^Nah.  This isn't primarily about gear comparison, it's a taper cage-match throw-down!  A battle of styles, methods and means, mostly.

May the best recording win, each taper doing what they do the way they do it, with the results judged not by popularity elsewhere or by any other measure except blind comparison vote by their collective taper peers here at TS where the row has been sown.
I hope this competition actually occurs.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: nak700s on August 01, 2017, 05:11:55 PM
^^ I hope it happens too.  I'd love to see this played out.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: daspyknows on August 01, 2017, 05:17:05 PM
^Nah.  This isn't primarily about gear comparison, it's a taper cage-match throw-down!  A battle of styles, methods and means, mostly.

May the best recording win, each taper doing what they do the way they do it, with the results judged not by popularity elsewhere or by any other measure except blind comparison vote by their collective taper peers here at TS where the row has been sown.

Only one taper is willing   :bigsmile: 

Only way to do it would be a completely independent party gets both of our files and posts the poll.  I am fine with any of the rules proposed so far by those on the board.   

Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: Moke on August 01, 2017, 05:39:27 PM
https://we.tl/yskBf4qfez

R09 vs. DPA 4022 -> Grace V3 -> SD 722 (DIN stereo @ 9')
Same mic stand, w/ R09 a bit lower due to no sound checking; an impromptu recording by conductors request. He was curious as to how the internals of the R09 sounded, as he was considering buying one for rehearsals, music lessons, composing.

Hall,... multi-purpose room at Country Club Golf Course - not a music hall.  You'll hear stuff in the recording, like HVAC.
And, its acoustic music, and not some bloated PA sounds.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger on August 02, 2017, 04:48:31 AM

He's actually right here, his claim has always been he can take his stuff (Sonic, internals, doesn't matter) and do his "thing" and the recording will be as good (or 90% whatever that means) as anyone's. You can't make him stand somewhere he wouldn't or not finger someone or even take away whatever he does in post, because that's all a part of his thing. Perhaps he knows that his unit can't handle X amount of low end, so he cuts it, knowing full well he's gonna add it back in post, if he can't do that, then it's not doing his thing, it's doing someone else's, he's never claimed that other methods would produce a good tape, just his own.

The only "fair" way of doing it (scientific or not) is both tapers recording the same show using whatever means they use (mics, gear, location, etc, all up to taper) and both doing what ever they do in post. Then conduct an independent poll online where the listeners have no idea as to who made the recording, the equipment used or the tapers location. Any other way would produce results slanted one way or the other.


this guy gets it.

"90% as good as": if a mic stand recording is an "A to A+" (as per you folks), I can pull a recording that sounds at least like a B+/A- 100% of the time with internals on the DR-2D


to me, it's not worth the $1000's of extra dollars, hauling crap around, set up/tear down time for maybe a 10% improvement in sound quality.


what daspy proposes is ridiculous on numerous levels.



I disagree.  Furburger said that internals are as good or better than "expensive" microphones (yes, percentages were cited).  A true test for that is to eliminate all variables other than the actual equipment being used to record and make an accurate comparison.  Had I been able to score a ticket for tonight's Phish show (in the tapers section), I was prepared to bring 3 rigs with me to do just that.  Yes, it is all packed!  Although different set-ups than our two combatants, it would have been a fair representation for most.  I was prepared to run my regular rig (Nak 700's > SD 744T), CA-14's > CA9200 > Sony PCM-M10, and a Sony PCM-M10 using its internals, all mounted on the same stand.  It would have been a direct comparison of internals vs. 2 different externals, all other factors being equal.  After all of this arguing, I would have gladly done all the work, if for no other reason, to satisfy my own curiosity.


pretty sure that I said the internals are at least 90% as good. don't think I ever said that the internals were "better than" (unless in response to daspy's vitriol).

the Mulvey link I posted, a mic stand isn't going to sound much better. (just one example).


the first time I pulled an internals recording that was significantly better than the Sonics, I was puzzled myself.

now I never run only the Sonics, and the internals "win" in terms of sound quality 20-30% of the time.


it'll be hard to find a venue that I've not taped in before, one that neither of us have ever taped at would add even another variable for me to thump his sorry ass in, as it's incredibly satisfying to go on a 3 week trip and not pick a single lemon.

and it happens very often.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: Sloan Simpson on August 02, 2017, 08:03:36 AM
I wonder when this moron is going to realize daspy still doesn't use a mic stand.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: jbosco on August 02, 2017, 08:43:43 AM

I disagree.  Furburger said that internals are as good or better than "expensive" microphones (yes, percentages were cited).  A true test for that is to eliminate all variables other than the actual equipment being used to record and make an accurate comparison. 

What's the point in that? That test has been done tons of times, hell I've even done that, you don't need daspy or furburger, just an "expensive" rig and a deck with internals mounted on the same mic stand, it wouldn't prove anything that most people haven't already determined for themselves. This is a tapers throw-down, one taper claims he can make a recording as good as another's using internals (or Sonics), time to put up or shut up, put them both in the same ring and let them have at it.

How's this sound for starters:
1) Same show, artist and venue.
2) Each taper picks their favorite song, and the other taper submits same song, then from the set-list someone else picks a song, so each taper submits the same 3 songs, one of which they feel is their best.
3) Someone collects the data and music and hosts the files, with no identifiers other then Song1-A or Song1-B, switch it around so A and B aren't always the same taper.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: daspyknows on August 02, 2017, 10:27:00 AM


this guy gets it.

"90% as good as": if a mic stand recording is an "A to A+" (as per you folks), I can pull a recording that sounds at least like a B+/A- 100% of the time with internals on the DR-2D


to me, it's not worth the $1000's of extra dollars, hauling crap around, set up/tear down time for maybe a 10% improvement in sound quality.


what daspy proposes is ridiculous on numerous levels.


What I propose is ridiculous.  You claim your recordings are better than mine but you will do nothing to back up your claim.  Its put up or shut up.   Fellow tapers agree there needs to be a throw down but you are the only one unwilling. Your internal mic recordings are NOT as good and it is not 10% as you say.  Funny this is you probably carry MORE gear than I do with your multiple DR-2D's than I carry with 1 DR-2D, 2 Schoeps capsules, 1 NBox Platinum and 4 foot active cables.  It takes me minutes to set up and tear down so no more effort.  Just better results using 25 year old mics that have been used more than 1,000 times. 

You are just afraid of the challenge.  It's ok to be chicken but claiming the challenge is ridiculous just makes you look weak.  Others here have proposed the rules, there responses are not nearly as ridiculous as FLAC file size or Dime downloads as a means of measuring quality. 

The funniest part is you are the one who constantly posts all the quality fluffing on your uploads.  I don't need to do that. 
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: KISSFAN on August 02, 2017, 11:50:08 AM
this argument started off funny, but now it is just sad. I have checked my list and it turns out that to date I have listened to 29 daspy masters and 62 fur masters. And I, for one, appreciate equally all of the efforts that each bring to this community. I will plan to continue listening and enjoying shows from each, but with all of this bickering and baiting, I have come to the conclusion that I probably wouldn't want to hang out with either one. Keep up the great work, kids.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: vanark on August 02, 2017, 12:53:55 PM
but with all of this bickering and baiting, I have come to the conclusion that I probably wouldn't want to hang out with either one. Keep up the great work, kids.

It isn't a great representation of the taping community, is it? If I was someone here looking to get into taping, I'd be scratching my head saying, "Do I really want to do this? These guys are assholes to each other? What will happen when I meet another one at a show?"

Luckily, I met tapers in real life before I ventured here and even then, this place was a much more pleasant place to hang out. Now, get offa my lawn!
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: daspyknows on August 02, 2017, 01:10:14 PM
but with all of this bickering and baiting, I have come to the conclusion that I probably wouldn't want to hang out with either one. Keep up the great work, kids.

It isn't a great representation of the taping community, is it? If I was someone here looking to get into taping, I'd be scratching my head saying, "Do I really want to do this? These guys are assholes to each other? What will happen when I meet another one at a show?"

Luckily, I met tapers in real life before I ventured here and even then, this place was a much more pleasant place to hang out. Now, get offa my lawn!

I have met many tapers on this site and I am sure they would vouch for me.  I am sick and tired of the character assassination and personal insults on here and other places from one said troll.  I will gladly ignore if the personal insults stop and don't start again in 2 months.  I have been told to ignore him but that doesn't work in this case so I am doing what I am doing.    If he is so sure his recordings are superior then let him prove it, otherwise he needs to STFU and leave me alone.

 
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: vanark on August 02, 2017, 03:04:59 PM
What exactly does "that doesn't work" mean? If you ignore him and don't care what he says, what happens? He continues to post? Who cares? Why do you care? You have allowed him to get under your skin and you have control over that.

I understand, really. I just think you can make a choice to end it. Otherwise the troll gets what he wants - your reaction to him.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: daspyknows on August 02, 2017, 03:11:36 PM
What exactly does "that doesn't work" mean? If you ignore him and don't care what he says, what happens? He continues to post? Who cares? Why do you care? You have allowed him to get under your skin and you have control over that.

I understand, really. I just think you can make a choice to end it. Otherwise the troll gets what he wants - your reaction to him.

I do not appreciate the personal insults.  You are not the recipient of the nonsense so you really can't understand it.  He has jumped on threads on other sites with same crap.  Ignoring it doesn't work.  Every few months I get subjected to it.  I am not willing to sit here and take the abuse because you think I should.  Sorry if you have a problem with it but I have tried it and it does not work.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: vanark on August 02, 2017, 08:06:27 PM
I just expected more from you than him. I have zero expectation of reasoning with Steve, but, I held out hope there was some reasoning with you that could be done to end this. To Steve, all this back and forth is a game and he is winning. I was trying to point that out to you. I have no ill will toward you, or Steve. I've said my piece and I'll try not to open this thread again.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: Moke on August 03, 2017, 09:33:07 PM
https://we.tl/yskBf4qfez

R09 vs. DPA 4022 -> Grace V3 -> SD 722 (DIN stereo @ 9')
Same mic stand, w/ R09 a bit lower due to no sound checking; an impromptu recording by conductors request. He was curious as to how the internals of the R09 sounded, as he was considering buying one for rehearsals, music lessons, composing.

Hall,... multi-purpose room at Country Club Golf Course - not a music hall.  You'll hear stuff in the recording, like HVAC.
And, its acoustic music, and not some bloated PA sounds.

So, did anyone listen?
Thoughts??
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: bombdiggity on August 04, 2017, 01:20:35 AM
In the shitstorm that is the bulk of this thread I lost track of this offer but am downloading now.  Maybe I'll have a few minutes to listen. 

It is an obvious simple test of one aspect but will not satisfy the fundamental cage match argument of the threadjack, which of course will still not be answered even if the parties did wind up in the same place.  That argument is not intended to be answered or even tested.  It's:  :tomato:
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: Gutbucket on August 04, 2017, 09:12:16 AM
Quote
Quote
Quote from: Moke on August 01, 2017, 05:39:27 PM
https://we.tl/yskBf4qfez

R09 vs. DPA 4022 -> Grace V3 -> SD 722 (DIN stereo @ 9')
Same mic stand, w/ R09 a bit lower due to no sound checking; an impromptu recording by conductors request. He was curious as to how the internals of the R09 sounded, as he was considering buying one for rehearsals, music lessons, composing.

Hall,... multi-purpose room at Country Club Golf Course - not a music hall.  You'll hear stuff in the recording, like HVAC.
And, its acoustic music, and not some bloated PA sounds.

So, did anyone listen?
Thoughts??

I remember this one from years ago.  Classic  R-09 era Bodyglove case in the photo, BTW.
Just listened again.

I can identify which is which via several audible ques, and prefer the 4022s overall, but that's not really the point being made.  The R-09 internals hold up really well here, perhaps the best I've ever heard from them, which to me is further evidence confirming that recording is always situation dependent, and this was a situation to which the internal R-09 mics were quite well suited.

To avoid being the spoiler, I'll withhold disclosing file identity or the specific ques I'm listening for. 
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: Moke on August 05, 2017, 04:41:17 PM
You are right on, Lee.
The biggest thing that I hear in them is in the amount of air conditioner noise that is apparent. Omnis always pick that up more, and there is no way around it. In this particular case, I had the main mic array up around 9', which is really high for me.  I had them angled downward at a fairly steep pitch, to focus on the mid-to-rear of the orchestra, which put the ceiling vents towards the rear null of the stereo pattern response. So,  the HVAC noise is less so in the 4022 track.
One thing I am impressed with the R09 is in the amount of stereo separation. Now that might be in part due to the fact that the recorder was in that Body Glove case, which only provides a clean aural view from the sides? guesstulatiing.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: Scooter123 on August 06, 2017, 01:51:10 PM
I have used DR2ds for over five years and still own that recorder for ALD and IEM pulls. 

It would seem to me that the easy answer to this question is simply have Da-Spy make his usual Schoeps masterpiece with his DR2d and make a second recording using another DR2d with the internals.  Do it in a low key show, so people don't get too freaked out by a guy holding up a recorder. 

Unless I am missing something, isn't that the easy answer?  Unless of course, something special is being done with the DR2d that I am not aware of. 
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: daspyknows on August 06, 2017, 09:00:00 PM
I have used DR2ds for over five years and still own that recorder for ALD and IEM pulls. 

It would seem to me that the easy answer to this question is simply have Da-Spy make his usual Schoeps masterpiece with his DR2d and make a second recording using another DR2d with the internals.  Do it in a low key show, so people don't get too freaked out by a guy holding up a recorder. 

Unless I am missing something, isn't that the easy answer?  Unless of course, something special is being done with the DR2d that I am not aware of.

I don't have Furby's special  :zoomie1: skills though like rolling off the bass.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: aaronji on August 08, 2017, 11:00:37 AM
One thing I am impressed with the R09 is in the amount of stereo separation.

Interesting that you say that.  To me, the most immediately obvious difference was the much better separation on the DPA recording, and that was after having read vanark's post about the noise in the other thread (so I was anticipating the noise).

I'm thinking that part of the reason the R09 sounds as good as it does is that it was up on a stand.  Most internal recordings I have heard have been from inside a pocket...
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: Moke on August 08, 2017, 11:27:07 AM
My suggestion about separation was based purely on the fact that there was any, at all.  I was expecting it to come out as a two channel mono sound, due to the closeness of the mics (to each other). So, it was quite a surprise on first listen.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: Gutbucket on August 08, 2017, 12:39:43 PM
I think your speculation about the case creating additional directionality compared to an R-09 without that case has merit.

With the recorder in the Bodyglove case, you can only see the microphone grid openings when looking from the sides, not from the front or back.  That particular phone case curved around the recorder at the bottom, but had flat front and back surfaces at the top where the microphones are located which sort of formed small ear-like flaps blocking direct sound arriving from directly in front or behind the recorder yet open to the sides and top. 
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: Moke on August 08, 2017, 01:05:29 PM
In my time with the R09-class, and possible uses as a standalone.... I've used it in the sample here, and, had a need for it another time. 
That other time,.. *[rolls eyes, smacks forehead, feels sick smilies here]
I was at an organ recital. I was rushed, and needed a battery for my mma6k.  I bought a new one at a convenience store en route. New battery dies before end of first set.
I could just use the internal mics, right? You'd think...
Nope, I totally forgot about them, and folded up shop. *[apply same smilie set here]

Let me tell you about the time that I used the DR70D internals,... without knowing it.  I'd somehow gotten confused in the manual, and turned the internals on, and then dropped the deck into my recording bag, and recorded those two channels from inside my bag, thinking that I was on external mics.  This one sucked. But it did explain the weird reaction to attempted level changes for those two channels.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: aaronji on August 08, 2017, 06:54:27 PM
My suggestion about separation was based purely on the fact that there was any, at all.  I was expecting it to come out as a two channel mono sound, due to the closeness of the mics (to each other). So, it was quite a surprise on first listen.

Yeah, definitely better than you might expect from (essentially) coincident omnis.  The explanation that you guys postulate seems reasonable to me; a little baffling can really make a big difference.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: Moke on August 08, 2017, 07:13:48 PM
I love baffles. This one is my handiest...

But seriously. In my experiments in seeing how small I could go with baffles, this one was really neat. I wandered around this park area listening to life going by.  It was really quite a lesson.
I totally concur, that it doesn't take much to make a substantial difference.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger on August 21, 2017, 03:50:43 AM

I disagree.  Furburger said that internals are as good or better than "expensive" microphones (yes, percentages were cited).  A true test for that is to eliminate all variables other than the actual equipment being used to record and make an accurate comparison. 

What's the point in that? That test has been done tons of times, hell I've even done that, you don't need daspy or furburger, just an "expensive" rig and a deck with internals mounted on the same mic stand, it wouldn't prove anything that most people haven't already determined for themselves. This is a tapers throw-down, one taper claims he can make a recording as good as another's using internals (or Sonics), time to put up or shut up, put them both in the same ring and let them have at it.

How's this sound for starters:
1) Same show, artist and venue.
2) Each taper picks their favorite song, and the other taper submits same song, then from the set-list someone else picks a song, so each taper submits the same 3 songs, one of which they feel is their best.
3) Someone collects the data and music and hosts the files, with no identifiers other then Song1-A or Song1-B, switch it around so A and B aren't always the same taper.



for my favorite terrorist daspy....

the #NineElevenShowdown: 2 shows/1 day



I plan on following The Magpie Salute all thru the Bay Area. (Sept 7 thru 12)

BUT, knowing the Crowes like I do, that would be too easy to pin the tail on daspy....I've nailed so many "sweet spot" Crowes recordings, it's ridiculous. shit, my tapes hit etree, 20 years after the fact, and nearly 300 pulls if not more than that on all of them just there (and that was *after* Weber whored them out).

and another couple hundred on dime and TTD.

SOOOOOOO, Mavis Staples is playing a brewery in Petaluma, 4:20 till 9:00pm....THEN Steve Winwood (with Lilly opening) at 8pm at Luther Burbank in Santa Rosa.

the towns are 18 miles apart.

on "terrorist day" (appros, no?)

I've never seen either *nor* taped at either venue (yeah, I'll go on his home turf, as it's clear he'd never set foot in Alaska)

BONUS points for whoever captures more of the music.



one show is GA (apparently, and possibly with free tickets)

will have to cut my cannabis seed buying expedition short, but that's ok.

just to prove daspy wrong.

thoughts?

are you man enough daspy?

-Steve
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: daspyknows on August 21, 2017, 10:20:05 AM
You must have known when I would be out of town when you picked these dates.  My trip was booked LAST October and has been mentioned on a number of threads.

http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=179597.msg2218669#msg2218669


Eric Clapton
7:30 PM - Madison Square Garden - New York, NY
Order # 33-31256/NY7
Order Date
Fri, Feb 3, 2017

Eric Clapton
7:30 PM - Madison Square Garden - New York, NY
Order # 36-19193/NY7
Order Date
Fri, Feb 3, 2017

Roger Waters: US + Them
8:00 PM - Barclays Center - Brooklyn, NY
Order # 41-45208/NY1
Order Date
Fri, Oct 21, 2016

Roger Waters: US + Them
8:00 PM - Barclays Center - Brooklyn, NY
Order # 54-29557/NY1
Order Date
Fri, Oct 21, 2016

Seeing Mavis for free THIS weekend and probably seeing Steve Winwood in Reno on Sep 3rd. 

Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: nak700s on August 21, 2017, 05:41:13 PM
You must have known when I would be out of town when you picked these dates.  My trip was booked LAST October and has been mentioned on a number of threads.

http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=179597.msg2218669#msg2218669


Eric Clapton
7:30 PM - Madison Square Garden - New York, NY
Order # 33-31256/NY7
Order Date
Fri, Feb 3, 2017

Eric Clapton
7:30 PM - Madison Square Garden - New York, NY
Order # 36-19193/NY7
Order Date
Fri, Feb 3, 2017

Roger Waters: US + Them
8:00 PM - Barclays Center - Brooklyn, NY
Order # 41-45208/NY1
Order Date
Fri, Oct 21, 2016

Roger Waters: US + Them
8:00 PM - Barclays Center - Brooklyn, NY
Order # 54-29557/NY1
Order Date
Fri, Oct 21, 2016

Seeing Mavis for free THIS weekend and probably seeing Steve Winwood in Reno on Sep 3rd.

Contest aside, I'm glad you'll be at these shows and recording.  Be careful going into Barclay's...metal detectors can be a bitch if you're not prepared for them.  MSG can be tough (also metal detectors), but very doable.  Wish I was able to grab a taping ticket, I'd like to meet up.  Safe travels and best of luck taping!
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: daspyknows on August 21, 2017, 06:33:00 PM
You must have known when I would be out of town when you picked these dates.  My trip was booked LAST October and has been mentioned on a number of threads.

http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=179597.msg2218669#msg2218669


Eric Clapton
7:30 PM - Madison Square Garden - New York, NY
Order # 33-31256/NY7
Order Date
Fri, Feb 3, 2017

Eric Clapton
7:30 PM - Madison Square Garden - New York, NY
Order # 36-19193/NY7
Order Date
Fri, Feb 3, 2017

Roger Waters: US + Them
8:00 PM - Barclays Center - Brooklyn, NY
Order # 41-45208/NY1
Order Date
Fri, Oct 21, 2016

Roger Waters: US + Them
8:00 PM - Barclays Center - Brooklyn, NY
Order # 54-29557/NY1
Order Date
Fri, Oct 21, 2016

Seeing Mavis for free THIS weekend and probably seeing Steve Winwood in Reno on Sep 3rd.

Contest aside, I'm glad you'll be at these shows and recording.  Be careful going into Barclay's...metal detectors can be a bitch if you're not prepared for them.  MSG can be tough (also metal detectors), but very doable.  Wish I was able to grab a taping ticket, I'd like to meet up.  Safe travels and best of luck taping!

Barclays new for me but have done Madison Square Garden many times.  Last time was David Gilmour.  It's a tough one but I have a method that has worked for me.  We should definitely try and meet up for a beer or two in any event.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: nak700s on August 21, 2017, 06:50:35 PM

Barclays new for me but have done Madison Square Garden many times.  Last time was David Gilmour.  It's a tough one but I have a method that has worked for me.  We should definitely try and meet up for a beer or two in any event.

Barclays is a bitch, but if it works at MSG, stick with it, but be extra precautious.  I avoid that place like the plague...but part of that for me is getting there and back is more than a pain in the ass.  MSG is a direct train ride for me...if I can meet up at that time, I definitely will.  If I had the money, I would have snagged a ticket for Clapton in a heartbeat.  Love Waters (music, not him), but if I was able to afford that ticket, I'd see him at Nassau Coliseum because it's local for me.  At least I've seen and recorded both.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: daspyknows on August 21, 2017, 07:03:20 PM

Barclays new for me but have done Madison Square Garden many times.  Last time was David Gilmour.  It's a tough one but I have a method that has worked for me.  We should definitely try and meet up for a beer or two in any event.

Barclays is a bitch, but if it works at MSG, stick with it, but be extra precautious.  I avoid that place like the plague...but part of that for me is getting there and back is more than a pain in the ass.  MSG is a direct train ride for me...if I can meet up at that time, I definitely will.  If I had the money, I would have snagged a ticket for Clapton in a heartbeat.  Love Waters (music, not him), but if I was able to afford that ticket, I'd see him at Nassau Coliseum because it's local for me.  At least I've seen and recorded both.

MSG is easiest for me too, my friend who I stay with is 3 subways stops away.  I am pretty well versed with walkthroughs and wands out here so I will be prepared.  Lets figure out a plan,
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: nak700s on August 21, 2017, 07:15:03 PM

Barclays new for me but have done Madison Square Garden many times.  Last time was David Gilmour.  It's a tough one but I have a method that has worked for me.  We should definitely try and meet up for a beer or two in any event.

Barclays is a bitch, but if it works at MSG, stick with it, but be extra precautious.  I avoid that place like the plague...but part of that for me is getting there and back is more than a pain in the ass.  MSG is a direct train ride for me...if I can meet up at that time, I definitely will.  If I had the money, I would have snagged a ticket for Clapton in a heartbeat.  Love Waters (music, not him), but if I was able to afford that ticket, I'd see him at Nassau Coliseum because it's local for me.  At least I've seen and recorded both.

MSG is easiest for me too, my friend who I stay with is 3 subways stops away.  I am pretty well versed with walkthroughs and wands out here so I will be prepared.  Lets figure out a plan,

 :coolguy: :cheers:
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger on August 24, 2017, 05:05:54 AM
this is from before I even knew what I was doing with the internals.

werd:

http://www.dimeadozen.org/torrents-details.php?id=599523

internal mic recording from 4 years ago. and it sounds fantastic.

now that I know what I'm doing, this may be easier than I thought.


I'm gonna hit Winwood and Mavis regardless of what Douchespy does.

as I don't expect her to walk the walk.

#wordsarecheap
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: daspyknows on August 24, 2017, 10:28:03 AM
this is from before I even knew what I was doing with the internals.

werd:

http://www.dimeadozen.org/torrents-details.php?id=599523

internal mic recording from 4 years ago. and it sounds fantastic.

now that I know what I'm doing, this may be easier than I thought.


I'm gonna hit Winwood and Mavis regardless of what Douchespy does.

as I don't expect her to walk the walk.

#wordsarecheap

Crawl back under your rock.  I am sure you picked those shows because you saw I was going to be out of town.  My trip was booked last October and has been discussed on this thread and others.   Why don't you postpone your trip for this http://www.hardlystrictlybluegrass.com/2017/     It is free,  just your style. 

Doesn't matter what you do, your recordings aren't any good.   Doesn't matter how hard you fluff them.   I'm sure you plan on doing Winwood from the last row since there are no good seats available I would tape from.

Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: Sloan Simpson on August 24, 2017, 10:53:36 AM
this is from before I even knew what I was doing with the internals.

werd:

http://www.dimeadozen.org/torrents-details.php?id=599523

internal mic recording from 4 years ago. and it sounds fantastic.

now that I know what I'm doing, this may be easier than I thought.


I'm gonna hit Winwood and Mavis regardless of what Douchespy does.

as I don't expect her to walk the walk.

#wordsarecheap

Crawl back under your rock.  I am sure you picked those shows because you saw I was going to be out of town.  My trip was booked last October and has been discussed on this thread and others.   Why don't you postpone your trip for this http://www.hardlystrictlybluegrass.com/2017/     It is free,  just your style. 

Doesn't matter what you do, your recordings aren't any good.   Doesn't matter how hard you fluff them.   I'm sure you plan on doing Winwood from the last row since there are no good seats available I would tape from.

While you are visiting don't forget visiting the Castro for seeds so you can them ballsdeep.

If you need a gay slur to make fun of Steve you're just as dumb as he is.

Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: daspyknows on August 24, 2017, 11:01:45 AM
That I will apologize for.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: lsd2525 on August 24, 2017, 12:05:22 PM
This thread needs a good 'ol fashioned Dillon Fries rant......
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: Moke on August 25, 2017, 12:37:00 AM
TS old school
(http://assets.inhabitat.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2012/06/red-tomato-meteorite.jpg)
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: acidjack on August 25, 2017, 10:36:50 AM
This thread needs a good 'ol fashioned Dillon Fries rant......
:cheers:
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger on August 26, 2017, 08:51:21 PM
this recording is a *perfect* example of why I would never, ever spend a dime on Schoepps mics, or use a mic stand.

what an utterly, muddy burpy mess.

everything to the left of 400hz is jumping up to +10-+12dB, then by the time you get to 1khz, the entire spectrum struggles to hit -12dB (nee: no mids or highs)


it *could* be fixed with some moderate EQ, but as is, what a waste.

smh:

http://bt.etree.org/details.php?id=594883
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger on August 26, 2017, 08:57:36 PM
this is from before I even knew what I was doing with the internals.

werd:

http://www.dimeadozen.org/torrents-details.php?id=599523

internal mic recording from 4 years ago. and it sounds fantastic.

now that I know what I'm doing, this may be easier than I thought.


I'm gonna hit Winwood and Mavis regardless of what Douchespy does.

as I don't expect her to walk the walk.

#wordsarecheap

Crawl back under your rock.  I am sure you picked those shows because you saw I was going to be out of town.  My trip was booked last October and has been discussed on this thread and others.   Why don't you postpone your trip for this http://www.hardlystrictlybluegrass.com/2017/     It is free,  just your style. 

Doesn't matter what you do, your recordings aren't any good.   Doesn't matter how hard you fluff them.   I'm sure you plan on doing Winwood from the last row since there are no good seats available I would tape from.


please don't flatter yourself, you're not so important that I pay attention to what you're doing...it's always a bunch of tired oldhead garbage anyways...

if I want a good Winwood seat, I get a good Winwood seat...money is not an object at this stage of the game...I just choose to not waste it on fluffed microphones.

my recordings actually are pretty good, sorry to break it to you...

go have fun with the AARP crowd...I'll just keep doing my thing.

:knew you'd run scared:
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: dmcculh on August 27, 2017, 02:58:34 AM
this recording is a *perfect* example of why I would never, ever spend a dime on Schoepps mics, or use a mic stand.

what an utterly, muddy burpy mess.

everything to the left of 400hz is jumping up to +10-+12dB, then by the time you get to 1khz, the entire spectrum struggles to hit -12dB (nee: no mids or highs)


it *could* be fixed with some moderate EQ, but as is, what a waste.

smh:

http://bt.etree.org/details.php?id=594883

Appreciate the feedback, good or bad. You're right, I did not do any post EQ; I certainly don't claim to be an expert in post. Actually with the way the venue sounded and where I was positioned, I'm thinking my AT hyper might end up sounding better. Hopefully will get some time to go through that source soon. Were you at the show? I met someone early on in the night who I never caught his name. I think you're hitting a couple shows this tour, hope you enjoy them.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: larrysellers on August 27, 2017, 08:02:22 AM

Appreciate the feedback, good or bad. You're right, I did not do any post EQ; I certainly don't claim to be an expert in post. Actually with the way the venue sounded and where I was positioned, I'm thinking my AT hyper might end up sounding better. Hopefully will get some time to go through that source soon. Were you at the show? I met someone early on in the night who I never caught his name. I think you're hitting a couple shows this tour, hope you enjoy them.

So you're agreeing that your tape is a "mess"? I downloaded it and, using the dragonfly and AT cans for playback, it sounds fine. He is using the audio equivalent of a Polaroid camera, so his feedback might not be the best gauge.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: dmcculh on August 27, 2017, 09:03:39 AM

Appreciate the feedback, good or bad. You're right, I did not do any post EQ; I certainly don't claim to be an expert in post. Actually with the way the venue sounded and where I was positioned, I'm thinking my AT hyper might end up sounding better. Hopefully will get some time to go through that source soon. Were you at the show? I met someone early on in the night who I never caught his name. I think you're hitting a couple shows this tour, hope you enjoy them.

So you're agreeing that your tape is a "mess"? I downloaded it and, using the dragonfly and AT cans for playback, it sounds fine. He is using the audio equivalent of a Polaroid camera, so his feedback might not be the best gauge.

It actually sounds better than I was expecting given the room and my position, which I'm happy about. I very much enjoyed listening to it again while tracking it, which is what I think matters. What I do agree with is that I don't have enough experience yet to EQ well and hence don't. I'm sure my tapes could sound better, and I certainly hope to get there with more experience, but I am still learning. Appreciate your feedback  :cheers:
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: daspyknows on August 27, 2017, 09:50:35 AM
this is from before I even knew what I was doing with the internals.

werd:

http://www.dimeadozen.org/torrents-details.php?id=599523

internal mic recording from 4 years ago. and it sounds fantastic.

now that I know what I'm doing, this may be easier than I thought.


I'm gonna hit Winwood and Mavis regardless of what Douchespy does.

as I don't expect her to walk the walk.

#wordsarecheap

Crawl back under your rock.  I am sure you picked those shows because you saw I was going to be out of town.  My trip was booked last October and has been discussed on this thread and others.   Why don't you postpone your trip for this http://www.hardlystrictlybluegrass.com/2017/     It is free,  just your style. 

Doesn't matter what you do, your recordings aren't any good.   Doesn't matter how hard you fluff them.   I'm sure you plan on doing Winwood from the last row since there are no good seats available I would tape from.


please don't flatter yourself, you're not so important that I pay attention to what you're doing...it's always a bunch of tired oldhead garbage anyways...

if I want a good Winwood seat, I get a good Winwood seat...money is not an object at this stage of the game...I just choose to not waste it on fluffed microphones.

my recordings actually are pretty good, sorry to break it to you...

go have fun with the AARP crowd...I'll just keep doing my thing.

:knew you'd run scared:

Not afraid of you, never have been, never will be.  Why should I cancel a trip booked a year ago because it works for your schedule.  Funny how you made the
 suggestion for Winwood and Mavis when the Magpie Salute shows are in SF.  Could it be you don't want me in the seats I prefer to give yourself the advantage you need.  I don't need to overpay for Luther Burbank venue, I just ask my friend who has access when seats go on sale?   :banging head:  If you are so hung up on Winwood, lets do Reno.  Will you change your plans, of course not.

Off to tape Mavis and to make a better recording that you will ever make.  Just stating the obvious.

BTW pretty good is not great.  You fluff your shit as great.  REAL tapers don't need to fluff their recordings. 

Yes, I will enjoy my AARP crowd as you describe it.  Lots of great friends to spend time with and the chance to meet REAL tapers not a  :zoomie1: clown.

 
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: Sloan Simpson on August 27, 2017, 10:38:22 AM
this recording is a *perfect* example of why I would never, ever spend a dime on Schoepps mics, or use a mic stand.

what an utterly, muddy burpy mess.

everything to the left of 400hz is jumping up to +10-+12dB, then by the time you get to 1khz, the entire spectrum struggles to hit -12dB (nee: no mids or highs)


it *could* be fixed with some moderate EQ, but as is, what a waste.

smh:

http://bt.etree.org/details.php?id=594883
I downloaded this and improved it with a few minutes work. That can be done because it's made with good microphones. Even untouched it sounds far better than any of the Sonics or internals garbage you post here. I know you're too stupid to understand any of this (or the sonic effects of a microphone stand  :lol:), I'm leaving this here for others.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: inoutoffocus on August 27, 2017, 06:45:02 PM
Here's a gem by the master himself. Bow down to turdburglar. Sweet kenwood eq.  ::)
What happened, you get too spun, warfield too much for you? Jerry was laughing at you. :o
As we all do every time you speak. You literally give me douche chills every time you post
Just go away.

http://bt.etree.org/details.php?id=594430

VS

http://db.etree.org/shn/12254
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: nak700s on August 28, 2017, 04:44:46 PM
Ahhhh, the ongoing source of entertainment that is this thread... Honestly, this is funny at this point.  I save this thread for when I'm bored at work to catch up and make me shake my head at something other than the people I speak to here.  Guys, don't take it so seriously.  Really, don't. Furburger just wants to get a rise out of Daspyknows.  I think it's safe to say that everyone on this site knows that internal microphones, although can surprise us when the stars align, are generally all crap and make recordings that reflect their quality as a microphone.  Real mics, on the other hand will have a sonic leg up on all internals.  Tiny stealthy mics, although often a necessary evil for what many of us do, aren't all that bad, and can make a nice recording.  They are certainly not as high end as a full-sized, high quality microphones, but they can make a very good recording in the right situation.  Sonics, dynamic range, depth, etc are all going to factor into the sound and richness of the recording.  The bottom line, however, is that some people are tone-deaf and won't hear the difference.  That isn't an insult, it's a fact.  Not far above that bottom line is the simple fact that different people like different things, and sound.  Additionally, there is a certain pride
(perhaps not the best choice of words) in our own recordings - when they come out to our liking, of course.  All of these factors come into play when it comes to our opinions about this stuff... so I think everyone needs to be a little bit kinder.  Just sayin'.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: Scooter123 on August 28, 2017, 08:12:05 PM
One of the greatest threads in the history of Taper's Section.  The insults are priceless. 
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: Scooter123 on August 28, 2017, 08:54:39 PM
A Recap, for Those Who Missed the Highlights:

"utterly, muddy burpy mess"

"faux-elitism"

"Did George Martin or Tom Dowd ever use internal mikes? I disagree with your concept 100%."

"Wait, you're running a bass rolloff and saying the resulting bass sounds thin? Having the roll off on is pretty much a sure fire way to decrease bass response."

"Just because they're asking $600 doesn't make them good."

"A lot has happened with technology the last twenty years. What was "pretty good" back in the 90's most likely can't compete with today's standards. Compare the Sonics with other stealth mics like Church Audio and it's obvious that things have developed for the better. My Schoeps MK4 caps are 25 years old and sure hold their own. 

"The Sonic Studios are entry level stealth mics, nothing more.  yeth dathpy, we *get* that all stealth mics are "entry level mics".....***in your opinion***"

"I'd be surprised if my Ben Harper show tomorrow doesn't smoke all of your BH recordings."

"It's especially funny when you try to pick a fight when someone is at least partly agreeing with you."

"mine will get more snatches than yours, then you'll blame geography."

"you *could* make an *equal* recording (I've never said that internals were better-than), if you had the brains."

"were you the "parent of the year", or was that Sloan?  perhaps you should focus on that instead of taping a bunch of dead, bloated crap."

"Clapton's last "amazing" playing was with Cream, he's been coasting ever since...one of the most overrated players I've ever heard, the junk took his skills away quick. what's the difference between a 4 year old and a bag of heroin?  Clapton won't drop the heroin."

"my father he didn't farm me out because he failed on numerous fronts as a father. do you even take your kid to shows? "

"a crappy 2 dollar Panasonic mic capsule Ben Harper show already has equalled, make that exceeded snatches of your fancy-schmancy microphone recording....in less than 24 hours daspy."

"again, your recordings aren't as good you think they are that much is certain."

"Which source are you referring to as the "fancy-schmancy" one?  daspys schweppes bottlerockets ben harper on dime, two months or so back or whatever foo-foo thingamabob he swears by."

"if one is into compression, then daspy is their man!"

" I've been a taper for 25 years on August 25. "

"Thank you for taking the time to 'translate', though I have trouble reconciling it with furry's arrogant, binary, and hyperbolic commentary."

"Sorry, but you are achieving the same level of douchenozzlery as him at this point. "

"Never wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig likes it."

 "wonder when this moron is going to realize daspy still doesn't use a mic stand."

"for my favorite terrorist daspy...."

"I'm gonna hit Winwood and Mavis regardless of what Douchespy does."

"Crawl back under your rock"

"While you are visiting don't forget visiting the Castro for seeds so you can them ballsdeep."

"go have fun with the AARP crowd...I'll just keep doing my thing."

"Doesn't matter what you do, your recordings aren't any good.   Doesn't matter how hard you fluff them. "

"You literally give me douche chills every time you post"

"Just go away. "

Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger on August 30, 2017, 04:08:42 AM
another fantastic recent internals recording:

http://www.dimeadozen.org/torrents-details.php?id=599943


it's not that hard to make them record well.

they easily outperformed the Sonics this night.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: bombdiggity on August 30, 2017, 05:51:57 PM
Actually with the way the venue sounded and where I was positioned, I'm thinking my AT hyper might end up sounding better.

It sounds like a PA mix in a not great room recorded from back of room will sound. 

The AT hyper may seem to sound better because it will roll off some of the frequencies where the echo is most pronounced. 

More fine tuning would certainly help, though there is some degree of mud in this that will remain inherent (due to the character of the mix and placement in room - not the mics used). 

I'm certain a raw internal mic recording from this same position would sound worse and there would be a lower quality signal to work with (or more work to do) in post to get that resembling something listenable. 

I'd agree with a general assertion that if you have to record from the back of the room to use a mic stand it makes more sense to apply 007 principles and record from where it sounds better.  No argument there (just a matter of will/personal comfort/preparation or whatever factors). 

It is completely irrelevant to compare a solo acoustic show recorded up front (and heavily processed through Izotope) to a raw recording of an electric full band from back of room.  There's nothing to compare between apples and oranges (though they're both fruit). 
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: splumer on September 01, 2017, 04:56:10 PM
this is from before I even knew what I was doing with the internals.

werd:

http://www.dimeadozen.org/torrents-details.php?id=599523

internal mic recording from 4 years ago. and it sounds fantastic.

now that I know what I'm doing, this may be easier than I thought.


Except for the phase shifting and dropouts, it sounds OK. Were you having a seizure?

Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger on September 12, 2017, 08:24:56 AM

Except for the phase shifting and dropouts, it sounds OK. Were you having a seizure?

dropouts?

that's a new one.

as for 'phase shifting', yeah, it was outdoors on the banks of the Mississippi, so there *may* have been a bit of wind.



said fuck the oldhead Winwood (as it was clear daspy would rather dream of sitting on Clapton's wrinkled root/short & curlies), but I did hit Mavis.

both Tom Waits AND Charlie Musselwhite made appearances.

or, it's clear I made the right decision.

the security guard thought my tits were so awesome, that she invited me as her guest.


all that said, 5 shows in 5 days (4 The Magpie Salute and Mavis), and a 6th (TMS in Fresno) tomorrow.


it's probably unfair of me to pick on the elderly, but it is what it is....


suck it daspypants, as if it were Clapton's hairy root.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger on September 12, 2017, 08:27:55 AM
A Recap, for Those Who Missed the Highlights:

"utterly, muddy burpy mess"

"faux-elitism"

"Did George Martin or Tom Dowd ever use internal mikes? I disagree with your concept 100%."

"Wait, you're running a bass rolloff and saying the resulting bass sounds thin? Having the roll off on is pretty much a sure fire way to decrease bass response."

"Just because they're asking $600 doesn't make them good."

"A lot has happened with technology the last twenty years. What was "pretty good" back in the 90's most likely can't compete with today's standards. Compare the Sonics with other stealth mics like Church Audio and it's obvious that things have developed for the better. My Schoeps MK4 caps are 25 years old and sure hold their own. 

"The Sonic Studios are entry level stealth mics, nothing more.  yeth dathpy, we *get* that all stealth mics are "entry level mics".....***in your opinion***"

"I'd be surprised if my Ben Harper show tomorrow doesn't smoke all of your BH recordings."

"It's especially funny when you try to pick a fight when someone is at least partly agreeing with you."

"mine will get more snatches than yours, then you'll blame geography."

"you *could* make an *equal* recording (I've never said that internals were better-than), if you had the brains."

"were you the "parent of the year", or was that Sloan?  perhaps you should focus on that instead of taping a bunch of dead, bloated crap."

"Clapton's last "amazing" playing was with Cream, he's been coasting ever since...one of the most overrated players I've ever heard, the junk took his skills away quick. what's the difference between a 4 year old and a bag of heroin?  Clapton won't drop the heroin."

"my father he didn't farm me out because he failed on numerous fronts as a father. do you even take your kid to shows? "

"a crappy 2 dollar Panasonic mic capsule Ben Harper show already has equalled, make that exceeded snatches of your fancy-schmancy microphone recording....in less than 24 hours daspy."

"again, your recordings aren't as good you think they are that much is certain."

"Which source are you referring to as the "fancy-schmancy" one?  daspys schweppes bottlerockets ben harper on dime, two months or so back or whatever foo-foo thingamabob he swears by."

"if one is into compression, then daspy is their man!"

" I've been a taper for 25 years on August 25. "

"Thank you for taking the time to 'translate', though I have trouble reconciling it with furry's arrogant, binary, and hyperbolic commentary."

"Sorry, but you are achieving the same level of douchenozzlery as him at this point. "

"Never wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig likes it."

 "wonder when this moron is going to realize daspy still doesn't use a mic stand."

"for my favorite terrorist daspy...."

"I'm gonna hit Winwood and Mavis regardless of what Douchespy does."

"Crawl back under your rock"

"While you are visiting don't forget visiting the Castro for seeds so you can them ballsdeep."

"go have fun with the AARP crowd...I'll just keep doing my thing."

"Doesn't matter what you do, your recordings aren't any good.   Doesn't matter how hard you fluff them. "

"You literally give me douche chills every time you post"

"Just go away. "


:like:


don't forget to add in the Clapton comments.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger on September 12, 2017, 08:30:18 AM
this is from before I even knew what I was doing with the internals.

werd:

http://www.dimeadozen.org/torrents-details.php?id=599523

internal mic recording from 4 years ago. and it sounds fantastic.

now that I know what I'm doing, this may be easier than I thought.


I'm gonna hit Winwood and Mavis regardless of what Douchespy does.

as I don't expect her to walk the walk.

#wordsarecheap

Crawl back under your rock.  I am sure you picked those shows because you saw I was going to be out of town.  My trip was booked last October and has been discussed on this thread and others.   Why don't you postpone your trip for this http://www.hardlystrictlybluegrass.com/2017/     It is free,  just your style. 

Doesn't matter what you do, your recordings aren't any good.   Doesn't matter how hard you fluff them.   I'm sure you plan on doing Winwood from the last row since there are no good seats available I would tape from.


please don't flatter yourself, you're not so important that I pay attention to what you're doing...it's always a bunch of tired oldhead garbage anyways...

if I want a good Winwood seat, I get a good Winwood seat...money is not an object at this stage of the game...I just choose to not waste it on fluffed microphones.

my recordings actually are pretty good, sorry to break it to you...

go have fun with the AARP crowd...I'll just keep doing my thing.

:knew you'd run scared:

Not afraid of you, never have been, never will be.  Why should I cancel a trip booked a year ago because it works for your schedule.  Funny how you made the
 suggestion for Winwood and Mavis when the Magpie Salute shows are in SF.  Could it be you don't want me in the seats I prefer to give yourself the advantage you need.  I don't need to overpay for Luther Burbank venue, I just ask my friend who has access when seats go on sale?   :banging head:  If you are so hung up on Winwood, lets do Reno.  Will you change your plans, of course not.

Off to tape Mavis and to make a better recording that you will ever make.  Just stating the obvious.

BTW pretty good is not great.  You fluff your shit as great.  REAL tapers don't need to fluff their recordings. 

Yes, I will enjoy my AARP crowd as you describe it.  Lots of great friends to spend time with and the chance to meet REAL tapers not a  :zoomie1: clown.


5 for motha fuckin' 5 there pookie.

soundchecks...filmed 3 of 4 TMS shows.

met Rich and Marc....got invited in.


maybe you and Clapton can play pinochle then go out for tea and crumpets afterwards.

the diff between a 4 year old and a bag of smack is EC won't drop the smack.

and, as always, it shows.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger on September 12, 2017, 08:31:03 AM
this recording is a *perfect* example of why I would never, ever spend a dime on Schoepps mics, or use a mic stand.

what an utterly, muddy burpy mess.

everything to the left of 400hz is jumping up to +10-+12dB, then by the time you get to 1khz, the entire spectrum struggles to hit -12dB (nee: no mids or highs)


it *could* be fixed with some moderate EQ, but as is, what a waste.

smh:

http://bt.etree.org/details.php?id=594883
I downloaded this and improved it with a few minutes work. That can be done because it's made with good microphones. Even untouched it sounds far better than any of the Sonics or internals garbage you post here. I know you're too stupid to understand any of this (or the sonic effects of a microphone stand  :lol:), I'm leaving this here for others.


yeah, but who in their right mind would put it out sounding like that?

for shame.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger on September 12, 2017, 08:36:42 AM
finally, one last little morsel of thought for all you spent idiots

my source for this was put up *LAST*, yet has 35 more pulls than the DPA's and 60 more than the Schoeps....

why is that (nothing against Alex OR Ted, both great guys, though I'd give the nod to Ted for congeniality)...but aren't DPA's AND Schoeps s'posed to be *better* than my shitty Sonics?

AND aren't etree'rs more discerning in their choices?

Other    The Magpie Salute 2017-09-08 San Francisco (Steve Hagar master)    [download]    41    12    09/09 22:32    937.75 MB    170 times    35    1    dorrcoq
Black Crowes    The Magpie Salute - Sept. 8, 2017 - San Francisco (DPA 4023)    [download]    25    7    09/09 12:30    1.022 GB    135 times    27    1    vwmule
Black Crowes    The Magpie Salute 2017-09-07 The Fillmore, San Francisco, CA, Schoeps MK5 (cardioid) > Nbob > Naiant PFA > EAA PSP2 > Marantz PMD-661 (Oade SuperMod)    [download]    26    13    09/09 11:18    834.09 MB    111 times    17    0    tedyun

uploaded last, shittiest mics, and the most pulls.


oldhead expensive-mic glorifiers sure aren't good at math.

and, as always, it mothafuckin' shows.

Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger on September 12, 2017, 08:38:41 AM


It is completely irrelevant to compare a solo acoustic show recorded up front (and heavily processed through Izotope) to a raw recording of an electric full band from back of room.  There's nothing to compare between apples and oranges (though they're both fruit).


um, I only listen to my raws at home.

as they sound pretty fucking good as is.

man, you folks sure are funny,.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: Sloan Simpson on September 12, 2017, 09:37:24 AM
this recording is a *perfect* example of why I would never, ever spend a dime on Schoepps mics, or use a mic stand.

what an utterly, muddy burpy mess.

everything to the left of 400hz is jumping up to +10-+12dB, then by the time you get to 1khz, the entire spectrum struggles to hit -12dB (nee: no mids or highs)


it *could* be fixed with some moderate EQ, but as is, what a waste.

smh:

http://bt.etree.org/details.php?id=594883
I downloaded this and improved it with a few minutes work. That can be done because it's made with good microphones. Even untouched it sounds far better than any of the Sonics or internals garbage you post here. I know you're too stupid to understand any of this (or the sonic effects of a microphone stand  :lol:), I'm leaving this here for others.


yeah, but who in their right mind would put it out sounding like that?

for shame.
I dunno. Some moron runs a bass cut at 80hz in the field in 2017, so you never know what people will do and why.

Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger on September 12, 2017, 09:56:02 AM
whoops, in my sleep deprived state, I missed something....lumped the show from the 7th in with the 8th

Black Crowes    The Magpie Salute 2017-09-07 The Fillmore, San Francisco, CA, Schoeps MK5 (cardioid) > Nbob > Naiant PFA > EAA PSP2 > Marantz PMD-661 (Oade SuperMod)    [download]    26    13    09/09 11:18    834.09 MB    111 times    19    0    tedyun
Other    The Magpie Salute 2017-09-07 San Francisco (Steve Hagar master)    [download]    28    10    09/08 22:49    815.99 MB    199 times    36    2    dorrcoq


shitty Sonics recording from the balcony was posted first, and has 80 more snatches than the Schoeps posted 2nd.

but then the shitty Sonics recording from the balcony the 2nd night was posted 2nd, and *still* has 30+ more pulls than the DPA's.


now why would that be?


would it be that the Sloan's and daspy's of the world are big fat liars?


sure looks that way from here  ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: Sloan Simpson on September 12, 2017, 10:05:25 AM
I never spoke to your number of downloads, dipshit.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: larrysellers on September 12, 2017, 10:38:35 AM
I love only seeing his bullshit when someone quotes it.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: daspyknows on September 12, 2017, 11:16:15 AM
I love only seeing his bullshit when someone quotes it.

I agree.  If I was to use furby logic about number of downloads my Clapton must be the best.  It already has almost 400 downloads in 18 hours.  More than his entire run of shows.  That is just one night.  I know better, more people want to hear Clapton than anyone Furby records.   

Wonder where his Winwood recording is.  I have a show from the same venue last time around, but then that would not be a valid comp because the sound was so much better or worse this time depending on the idiotic logic he is trying to prove. 


Steve Winwood 8/29/14 Wells Fargo Center Santa Rosa Ca
https://we.tl/1pUsk8UHPZ
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: if_then_else on September 12, 2017, 11:55:09 AM
Somebody please program a VST plugin that emulates this vintage Tascam internals + Kenwood EQ sound... I bet it would be a huge success with team Schoeps (and everybody else who runs an 'elitist' rig).
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: tedyun on September 13, 2017, 01:39:29 PM
Aww -- shucks, me?

I humbly accept the Miss Congeniality award! I would like to thank the tapers across the world that have inspired me to duct-tape mic capsules and a delrin bar onto a baseball cap then stand quiet and motionless in the middle of a crowd who are otherwise dancing, singing, screaming, clapping and having a good time, and oh yeah, I see taping as a way to end hunger and establish world peace and I can only hope that other tapers all the way from Alaska down the coast to the Bay Area will look to me and say, "hey, we can get along!" despite differences in microphones, mic placements, preamps, DACs, recorders, musical tastes and download count!

Thank you!

Thank you!

I love you all!



finally, one last little morsel of thought for all you spent idiots

my source for this was put up *LAST*, yet has 35 more pulls than the DPA's and 60 more than the Schoeps....

why is that (nothing against Alex OR Ted, both great guys, though I'd give the nod to Ted for congeniality)...but aren't DPA's AND Schoeps s'posed to be *better* than my shitty Sonics?

AND aren't etree'rs more discerning in their choices?

Other    The Magpie Salute 2017-09-08 San Francisco (Steve Hagar master)    [download]    41    12    09/09 22:32    937.75 MB    170 times    35    1    dorrcoq
Black Crowes    The Magpie Salute - Sept. 8, 2017 - San Francisco (DPA 4023)    [download]    25    7    09/09 12:30    1.022 GB    135 times    27    1    vwmule
Black Crowes    The Magpie Salute 2017-09-07 The Fillmore, San Francisco, CA, Schoeps MK5 (cardioid) > Nbob > Naiant PFA > EAA PSP2 > Marantz PMD-661 (Oade SuperMod)    [download]    26    13    09/09 11:18    834.09 MB    111 times    17    0    tedyun

uploaded last, shittiest mics, and the most pulls.


oldhead expensive-mic glorifiers sure aren't good at math.

and, as always, it mothafuckin' shows.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger on September 14, 2017, 12:57:51 AM
Aww -- shucks, me?

I humbly accept the Miss Congeniality award! I would like to thank the tapers across the world that have inspired me to duct-tape mic capsules and a delrin bar onto a baseball cap then stand quiet and motionless in the middle of a crowd who are otherwise dancing, singing, screaming, clapping and having a good time, and oh yeah, I see taping as a way to end hunger and establish world peace and I can only hope that other tapers all the way from Alaska down the coast to the Bay Area will look to me and say, "hey, we can get along!" despite differences in microphones, mic placements, preamps, DACs, recorders, musical tastes and download count!

Thank you!

Thank you!

I love you all!




Ted is a good dood...humble, kind, and was a pleasure to meet him.

I'm just pointing out simple facts:

if, in fact, Schoeps/DPA's/pick your favorite fancy-schmancy mic are so good, why are the discerning etree'rs downloading my shitty Sonics recordings much more often?

is it the "dime logic" that no one cares.

or is it that my recordings are actually pretty damn good?   


common sense says "b" is the correct answer.


bottom line: fancy mics are NOT necessary to obtain an excellent capture.


#numbersdontlie.....#butDaspysuredoes


Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger on September 14, 2017, 12:59:19 AM

I dunno. Some moron runs a bass cut at 80hz in the field in 2017, so you never know what people will do and why.


yeah, and that moron gets more pulls that those who don't.


fuck you are one easy chicken, I'll give you that.

you might want to find an editor for your show notes, btw.....we already know math is not your strong suit, and from reading your notes, English is a struggle for you as well.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger on September 14, 2017, 01:03:00 AM
the best part about taping the Fillmore shows was taping from the window night 1, having security say "we don't let ANYONE tape from up here, you have to go downstairs", then ***still getting my way anyways*** (ran stealth video as well).


escalated it all the way to the Fillmore manager, when the meathead mouthbreathing security dude got irritated with Chris and Alex...I started off by saying to him "perhaps we got off on the wrong foot", and he offered to get the manager if I'd agree with her decision....and OF COURSE Alaska got his way.


would LOVE to see a fool like daspy in that kind of a situation.

from a distance, of course. 


from the way he types, I doubt he brushes his teeth.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger on September 14, 2017, 01:03:44 AM
I never spoke to your number of downloads, dipshit.


even if you do speak, no one listens.

just so you know.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger on September 14, 2017, 01:05:29 AM
the 2nd best part about the TMS run was being given soundcheck access for the last 3 shows (and most likely from now on).

the band even likes my work.

but it still must be horrible :rollseyes:


that's the huge difference between actual music fans vs. people who are fans of themselves.



Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger on September 14, 2017, 01:08:29 AM

Off to tape Mavis and to make a better recording that you will ever make.  Just stating the obvious.




so where is it?

mines already up, and doing quite nicely.

I said fuck Winwood.....not really into that crusty oldhead shit that you hold so dear.

the Waits and Musselwhite guest spots at Mavis made that show the correct decision. had there not been a rain delay, I prolly would have done Winwood as well.

I utterly nailed 6 shows in 6 days, sitting in Seattle right now before doing it all again on the 24th.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger on September 14, 2017, 01:10:19 AM
this recording is a *perfect* example of why I would never, ever spend a dime on Schoepps mics, or use a mic stand.

what an utterly, muddy burpy mess.

everything to the left of 400hz is jumping up to +10-+12dB, then by the time you get to 1khz, the entire spectrum struggles to hit -12dB (nee: no mids or highs)


it *could* be fixed with some moderate EQ, but as is, what a waste.

smh:

http://bt.etree.org/details.php?id=594883
I downloaded this and improved it with a few minutes work. That can be done because it's made with good microphones. Even untouched it sounds far better than any of the Sonics or internals garbage you post here. I know you're too stupid to understand any of this (or the sonic effects of a microphone stand  :lol:), I'm leaving this here for others.


you are utterly retarded to say such garbage.

the above show is a muddy, no-high-end mess, and while it could be improved a bit, it's not even close to a "good" sound.

I'm sorry you waste so much money on microphones when it isn't necessary IF you know how  to tape.

clearly, you do not.

and it shows.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger on September 14, 2017, 01:14:11 AM
Here's a gem by the master himself. Bow down to turdburglar. Sweet kenwood eq.  ::)
What happened, you get too spun, warfield too much for you? Jerry was laughing at you. :o
As we all do every time you speak. You literally give me douche chills every time you post
Just go away.

http://bt.etree.org/details.php?id=594430

VS

http://db.etree.org/shn/12254


I can't stand Jerry Garcia, and it was utterly painful to watch all the stinky hippies twirling about in the aisles at that show. had already taped nearly 20 shows the month before, and was so not into his out-of-tune playing that it is one of less-than-five shows I've EVER walked out of early.

yes, Mick told me that the other source had fades between the songs, but he still wanted to upload it, and I trust his ear.

he said it sounded "just like being there".

and that's good enough for me.

not sure what you're really trying to say up there, but even an incomplete Jerry show from me gets 100+ snatches.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger on September 14, 2017, 01:15:53 AM
Ahhhh, the ongoing source of entertainment that is this thread... Honestly, this is funny at this point.  I save this thread for when I'm bored at work to catch up and make me shake my head at something other than the people I speak to here.  Guys, don't take it so seriously.  Really, don't. Furburger just wants to get a rise out of Daspyknows.  I think it's safe to say that everyone on this site knows that internal microphones, although can surprise us when the stars align, are generally all crap and make recordings that reflect their quality as a microphone.  Real mics, on the other hand will have a sonic leg up on all internals.  Tiny stealthy mics, although often a necessary evil for what many of us do, aren't all that bad, and can make a nice recording.  They are certainly not as high end as a full-sized, high quality microphones, but they can make a very good recording in the right situation.  Sonics, dynamic range, depth, etc are all going to factor into the sound and richness of the recording.  The bottom line, however, is that some people are tone-deaf and won't hear the difference.  That isn't an insult, it's a fact.  Not far above that bottom line is the simple fact that different people like different things, and sound.  Additionally, there is a certain pride
(perhaps not the best choice of words) in our own recordings - when they come out to our liking, of course.  All of these factors come into play when it comes to our opinions about this stuff... so I think everyone needs to be a little bit kinder.  Just sayin'.


the DR-2D internals are not crap.


I've gotten too many excellent pulls with them to buy into that for one second.

the Edirol R-09 ones ARE crap, and I've not used any other internals.


it's all about the gain, and the positioning.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: swordfish on September 14, 2017, 05:42:14 AM

Off to tape Mavis and to make a better recording that you will ever make.  Just stating the obvious.




so where is it?

mines already up, and doing quite nicely.

I said fuck Winwood.....not really into that crusty oldhead shit that you hold so dear.

the Waits and Musselwhite guest spots at Mavis made that show the correct decision. had there not been a rain delay, I prolly would have done Winwood as well.

I utterly nailed 6 shows in 6 days, sitting in Seattle right now before doing it all again on the 24th.


As a Waits fan I would like to get my hands to this Mavis recording, no matter if internals or Schoeps.....FIW I did internal mic recordings and Schopes recordings...some good some bad with both equipments...
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: Sloan Simpson on September 14, 2017, 07:56:25 AM
Here's a gem by the master himself. Bow down to turdburglar. Sweet kenwood eq.  ::)
What happened, you get too spun, warfield too much for you? Jerry was laughing at you. :o
As we all do every time you speak. You literally give me douche chills every time you post
Just go away.

http://bt.etree.org/details.php?id=594430

VS

http://db.etree.org/shn/12254


I can't stand Jerry Garcia, and it was utterly painful to watch all the stinky hippies twirling about in the aisles at that show. had already taped nearly 20 shows the month before, and was so not into his out-of-tune playing that it is one of less-than-five shows I've EVER walked out of early.

yes, Mick told me that the other source had fades between the songs, but he still wanted to upload it, and I trust his ear.

he said it sounded "just like being there".

and that's good enough for me.

not sure what you're really trying to say up there, but even an incomplete Jerry show from me gets 100+ snatches.

Hahahahahaa
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: nak700s on September 14, 2017, 02:32:53 PM
Ahhhh, the ongoing source of entertainment that is this thread... Honestly, this is funny at this point.  I save this thread for when I'm bored at work to catch up and make me shake my head at something other than the people I speak to here.  Guys, don't take it so seriously.  Really, don't. Furburger just wants to get a rise out of Daspyknows.  I think it's safe to say that everyone on this site knows that internal microphones, although can surprise us when the stars align, are generally all crap and make recordings that reflect their quality as a microphone.  Real mics, on the other hand will have a sonic leg up on all internals.  Tiny stealthy mics, although often a necessary evil for what many of us do, aren't all that bad, and can make a nice recording.  They are certainly not as high end as a full-sized, high quality microphones, but they can make a very good recording in the right situation.  Sonics, dynamic range, depth, etc are all going to factor into the sound and richness of the recording.  The bottom line, however, is that some people are tone-deaf and won't hear the difference.  That isn't an insult, it's a fact.  Not far above that bottom line is the simple fact that different people like different things, and sound.  Additionally, there is a certain pride
(perhaps not the best choice of words) in our own recordings - when they come out to our liking, of course.  All of these factors come into play when it comes to our opinions about this stuff... so I think everyone needs to be a little bit kinder.  Just sayin'.


the DR-2D internals are not crap.


I've gotten too many excellent pulls with them to buy into that for one second.

the Edirol R-09 ones ARE crap, and I've not used any other internals.


it's all about the gain, and the positioning.

"I think it's safe to say that everyone on this site knows that internal microphones, although can surprise us when the stars align, are generally all crap and make recordings that reflect their quality as a microphone."

Yes, I thought I was very clear when I said that it is possible to pull a good recording with internals...which includes yours.  You can huff and puff all you want, but given an ideal recording situation for both internals and for a high quality pair of microphones, there will be no comparison.  A pair of internals are not equipped to handle what many bands will throw at them, a full size diaphragm with high quality electronics can. Period.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: daspyknows on September 14, 2017, 03:10:37 PM
Ahhhh, the ongoing source of entertainment that is this thread... Honestly, this is funny at this point.  I save this thread for when I'm bored at work to catch up and make me shake my head at something other than the people I speak to here.  Guys, don't take it so seriously.  Really, don't. Furburger just wants to get a rise out of Daspyknows.  I think it's safe to say that everyone on this site knows that internal microphones, although can surprise us when the stars align, are generally all crap and make recordings that reflect their quality as a microphone.  Real mics, on the other hand will have a sonic leg up on all internals.  Tiny stealthy mics, although often a necessary evil for what many of us do, aren't all that bad, and can make a nice recording.  They are certainly not as high end as a full-sized, high quality microphones, but they can make a very good recording in the right situation.  Sonics, dynamic range, depth, etc are all going to factor into the sound and richness of the recording.  The bottom line, however, is that some people are tone-deaf and won't hear the difference.  That isn't an insult, it's a fact.  Not far above that bottom line is the simple fact that different people like different things, and sound.  Additionally, there is a certain pride
(perhaps not the best choice of words) in our own recordings - when they come out to our liking, of course.  All of these factors come into play when it comes to our opinions about this stuff... so I think everyone needs to be a little bit kinder.  Just sayin'.


the DR-2D internals are not crap.


I've gotten too many excellent pulls with them to buy into that for one second.

the Edirol R-09 ones ARE crap, and I've not used any other internals.


it's all about the gain, and the positioning.

"I think it's safe to say that everyone on this site knows that internal microphones, although can surprise us when the stars align, are generally all crap and make recordings that reflect their quality as a microphone."

Yes, I thought I was very clear when I said that it is possible to pull a good recording with internals...which includes yours.  You can huff and puff all you want, but given an ideal recording situation for both internals and for a high quality pair of microphones, there will be no comparison.  A pair of internals are not equipped to handle what many bands will throw at them, a full size diaphragm with high quality electronics can. Period.

Totally agree but I sense that the goalposts have been moved again based on the latest rant.  The definition of quality is now the number of downloads made by non tapers who know little about sound quality and just see the "look at me, my recordings are best" comments.  Anyone who questions that or actually takes the time to listen becomes the target of insults. 

Most tapers don't need to or feel they have to fluff their recordings.  The recordings speak for themselves and whether the Cybermooses of the world download the recording is irrelevant to sound quality. 



Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: nak700s on September 14, 2017, 04:00:37 PM
Ahhhh, the ongoing source of entertainment that is this thread... Honestly, this is funny at this point.  I save this thread for when I'm bored at work to catch up and make me shake my head at something other than the people I speak to here.  Guys, don't take it so seriously.  Really, don't. Furburger just wants to get a rise out of Daspyknows.  I think it's safe to say that everyone on this site knows that internal microphones, although can surprise us when the stars align, are generally all crap and make recordings that reflect their quality as a microphone.  Real mics, on the other hand will have a sonic leg up on all internals.  Tiny stealthy mics, although often a necessary evil for what many of us do, aren't all that bad, and can make a nice recording.  They are certainly not as high end as a full-sized, high quality microphones, but they can make a very good recording in the right situation.  Sonics, dynamic range, depth, etc are all going to factor into the sound and richness of the recording.  The bottom line, however, is that some people are tone-deaf and won't hear the difference.  That isn't an insult, it's a fact.  Not far above that bottom line is the simple fact that different people like different things, and sound.  Additionally, there is a certain pride
(perhaps not the best choice of words) in our own recordings - when they come out to our liking, of course.  All of these factors come into play when it comes to our opinions about this stuff... so I think everyone needs to be a little bit kinder.  Just sayin'.


the DR-2D internals are not crap.


I've gotten too many excellent pulls with them to buy into that for one second.

the Edirol R-09 ones ARE crap, and I've not used any other internals.


it's all about the gain, and the positioning.

"I think it's safe to say that everyone on this site knows that internal microphones, although can surprise us when the stars align, are generally all crap and make recordings that reflect their quality as a microphone."

Yes, I thought I was very clear when I said that it is possible to pull a good recording with internals...which includes yours.  You can huff and puff all you want, but given an ideal recording situation for both internals and for a high quality pair of microphones, there will be no comparison.  A pair of internals are not equipped to handle what many bands will throw at them, a full size diaphragm with high quality electronics can. Period.

Totally agree but I sense that the goalposts have been moved again based on the latest rant.  The definition of quality is now the number of downloads made by non tapers who know little about sound quality and just see the "look at me, my recordings are best" comments.  Anyone who questions that or actually takes the time to listen becomes the target of insults. 

Most tapers don't need to or feel they have to fluff their recordings.  The recordings speak for themselves and whether the Cybermooses of the world download the recording is irrelevant to sound quality.

Agreed.  Personally, I have no interest in the amount of downloads of a recording since it means virtually nothing at all, other than the possibility that they posted their pull first and it became the most seeded and has the illusion of being popular.  A taper, like myself, will no doubt look at the gear used before they download.  I do, and automatically pass on any internal recordings as well as any equipment I don't particularly care for.  If I want something that I didn't record myself, I will search for the best equipment and location before downloading.  I totally believe that a non-taper (or laymen), will often assume the more downloads, the better the source.  If they're happy, that's all that matters, but could you imagine if their eyes (ahem, or ears) were opened all of a sudden and they listened to a superior recording of something they thought they were happy with? 
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: daspyknows on September 14, 2017, 04:56:33 PM
Ahhhh, the ongoing source of entertainment that is this thread... Honestly, this is funny at this point.  I save this thread for when I'm bored at work to catch up and make me shake my head at something other than the people I speak to here.  Guys, don't take it so seriously.  Really, don't. Furburger just wants to get a rise out of Daspyknows.  I think it's safe to say that everyone on this site knows that internal microphones, although can surprise us when the stars align, are generally all crap and make recordings that reflect their quality as a microphone.  Real mics, on the other hand will have a sonic leg up on all internals.  Tiny stealthy mics, although often a necessary evil for what many of us do, aren't all that bad, and can make a nice recording.  They are certainly not as high end as a full-sized, high quality microphones, but they can make a very good recording in the right situation.  Sonics, dynamic range, depth, etc are all going to factor into the sound and richness of the recording.  The bottom line, however, is that some people are tone-deaf and won't hear the difference.  That isn't an insult, it's a fact.  Not far above that bottom line is the simple fact that different people like different things, and sound.  Additionally, there is a certain pride
(perhaps not the best choice of words) in our own recordings - when they come out to our liking, of course.  All of these factors come into play when it comes to our opinions about this stuff... so I think everyone needs to be a little bit kinder.  Just sayin'.


the DR-2D internals are not crap.


I've gotten too many excellent pulls with them to buy into that for one second.

the Edirol R-09 ones ARE crap, and I've not used any other internals.


it's all about the gain, and the positioning.

"I think it's safe to say that everyone on this site knows that internal microphones, although can surprise us when the stars align, are generally all crap and make recordings that reflect their quality as a microphone."

Yes, I thought I was very clear when I said that it is possible to pull a good recording with internals...which includes yours.  You can huff and puff all you want, but given an ideal recording situation for both internals and for a high quality pair of microphones, there will be no comparison.  A pair of internals are not equipped to handle what many bands will throw at them, a full size diaphragm with high quality electronics can. Period.

Totally agree but I sense that the goalposts have been moved again based on the latest rant.  The definition of quality is now the number of downloads made by non tapers who know little about sound quality and just see the "look at me, my recordings are best" comments.  Anyone who questions that or actually takes the time to listen becomes the target of insults. 

Most tapers don't need to or feel they have to fluff their recordings.  The recordings speak for themselves and whether the Cybermooses of the world download the recording is irrelevant to sound quality.

Agreed.  Personally, I have no interest in the amount of downloads of a recording since it means virtually nothing at all, other than the possibility that they posted their pull first and it became the most seeded and has the illusion of being popular.  A taper, like myself, will no doubt look at the gear used before they download.  I do, and automatically pass on any internal recordings as well as any equipment I don't particularly care for.  If I want something that I didn't record myself, I will search for the best equipment and location before downloading.  I totally believe that a non-taper (or laymen), will often assume the more downloads, the better the source.  If they're happy, that's all that matters, but could you imagine if their eyes (ahem, or ears) were opened all of a sudden and they listened to a superior recording of something they thought they were happy with?

So true.  There is only one "taper" who seems to think it really matters. 

For all the trashing of Eric Clapton, the recording has more downloads than any of the internal mic recordings being fluffed.  The more downloads just means more people want to hear Clapton who sold out Madison Square Garden than Magpie Salutes who from what I saw posted couldn't even sell out the Fillmore (900 people). 

There are ways to goose download counts if its important to someone, but that means nothing in regards to quality.  Post first,  say your recordings are great,  provide samples are some.  None of it says anything about sound quality.  Just like McDonalds, they advertise and fluff their products incessantly but if you want a real good burger, do you go to McDonalds?  I don't and I don't bother with internal mic recordings either unless there was a real reason to bother with them.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: nak700s on September 14, 2017, 05:23:08 PM
Ahhhh, the ongoing source of entertainment that is this thread... Honestly, this is funny at this point.  I save this thread for when I'm bored at work to catch up and make me shake my head at something other than the people I speak to here.  Guys, don't take it so seriously.  Really, don't. Furburger just wants to get a rise out of Daspyknows.  I think it's safe to say that everyone on this site knows that internal microphones, although can surprise us when the stars align, are generally all crap and make recordings that reflect their quality as a microphone.  Real mics, on the other hand will have a sonic leg up on all internals.  Tiny stealthy mics, although often a necessary evil for what many of us do, aren't all that bad, and can make a nice recording.  They are certainly not as high end as a full-sized, high quality microphones, but they can make a very good recording in the right situation.  Sonics, dynamic range, depth, etc are all going to factor into the sound and richness of the recording.  The bottom line, however, is that some people are tone-deaf and won't hear the difference.  That isn't an insult, it's a fact.  Not far above that bottom line is the simple fact that different people like different things, and sound.  Additionally, there is a certain pride
(perhaps not the best choice of words) in our own recordings - when they come out to our liking, of course.  All of these factors come into play when it comes to our opinions about this stuff... so I think everyone needs to be a little bit kinder.  Just sayin'.


the DR-2D internals are not crap.


I've gotten too many excellent pulls with them to buy into that for one second.

the Edirol R-09 ones ARE crap, and I've not used any other internals.


it's all about the gain, and the positioning.

"I think it's safe to say that everyone on this site knows that internal microphones, although can surprise us when the stars align, are generally all crap and make recordings that reflect their quality as a microphone."

Yes, I thought I was very clear when I said that it is possible to pull a good recording with internals...which includes yours.  You can huff and puff all you want, but given an ideal recording situation for both internals and for a high quality pair of microphones, there will be no comparison.  A pair of internals are not equipped to handle what many bands will throw at them, a full size diaphragm with high quality electronics can. Period.

Totally agree but I sense that the goalposts have been moved again based on the latest rant.  The definition of quality is now the number of downloads made by non tapers who know little about sound quality and just see the "look at me, my recordings are best" comments.  Anyone who questions that or actually takes the time to listen becomes the target of insults. 

Most tapers don't need to or feel they have to fluff their recordings.  The recordings speak for themselves and whether the Cybermooses of the world download the recording is irrelevant to sound quality.

Agreed.  Personally, I have no interest in the amount of downloads of a recording since it means virtually nothing at all, other than the possibility that they posted their pull first and it became the most seeded and has the illusion of being popular.  A taper, like myself, will no doubt look at the gear used before they download.  I do, and automatically pass on any internal recordings as well as any equipment I don't particularly care for.  If I want something that I didn't record myself, I will search for the best equipment and location before downloading.  I totally believe that a non-taper (or laymen), will often assume the more downloads, the better the source.  If they're happy, that's all that matters, but could you imagine if their eyes (ahem, or ears) were opened all of a sudden and they listened to a superior recording of something they thought they were happy with?

So true.  There is only one "taper" who seems to think it really matters. 

For all the trashing of Eric Clapton, the recording has more downloads than any of the internal mic recordings being fluffed.  The more downloads just means more people want to hear Clapton who sold out Madison Square Garden than Magpie Salutes who from what I saw posted couldn't even sell out the Fillmore (900 people). 

There are ways to goose download counts if its important to someone, but that means nothing in regards to quality.  Post first,  say your recordings are great,  provide samples are some.  None of it says anything about sound quality.  Just like McDonalds, they advertise and fluff their products incessantly but if you want a real good burger, do you go to McDonalds?  I don't and I don't bother with internal mic recordings either unless there was a real reason to bother with them.

 :clapping: :cheers:
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: hoserama on September 14, 2017, 10:36:23 PM
[insert rant here]

[insert derogatory dig at daspy and others]

...and it shows.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: tapeheadtoo on September 15, 2017, 02:54:39 PM
I've been following this thread on and off for amusement value.  And it has been amusing....

My $0.02:
I've posted mediocre recordings (yes even with Schoeps when I wasn't in a good spot and/or had noisy neighbors) and people have fallen over themselves with the superlatives.  So download count means nothing.  Many (most?) downloaders have no clue about gear, they're just happy to have a listenable recording. 

But: if I were in that not-so-good spot with noisy neighbors running both Schoeps and internals, while the high end external mics might yield a so-so recording the internals will *always* be worse, by a significant margin.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: nak700s on September 18, 2017, 05:16:06 PM
^^^ Isn't it a fun thread? LOLOLOL, totally entertaining! ^^^

Hey for the sake of fun and games, check this set out and see what ya'll think.  It's a WeTransfer link and expires 9/23.  I'm not tying to test anyone, the anal report is included...there are no modifications to sound, all I did was individually bring down a few spikes and then bring each channel up...no compressing or normalizing.  I consider it a "good" recording.

https://we.tl/egKKOo6S3D

Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: Sloan Simpson on September 18, 2017, 05:36:50 PM
^^^ Isn't it a fun thread? LOLOLOL, totally entertaining! ^^^

Hey for the sake of fun and games, check this set out and see what ya'll think.  It's a WeTransfer link and expires 9/23.  I'm not tying to test anyone, the anal report is included...there are no modifications to sound, all I did was individually bring down a few spikes and then bring each channel up...no compressing or normalizing.  I consider it a "good" recording.

https://we.tl/egKKOo6S3D

Well bringing down a few spikes and bringing each channel up is normalizing :) But this sounds great. For something not made with magic Tascam mics I mean.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: nak700s on September 18, 2017, 05:47:20 PM
^^^ Isn't it a fun thread? LOLOLOL, totally entertaining! ^^^

Hey for the sake of fun and games, check this set out and see what ya'll think.  It's a WeTransfer link and expires 9/23.  I'm not tying to test anyone, the anal report is included...there are no modifications to sound, all I did was individually bring down a few spikes and then bring each channel up...no compressing or normalizing.  I consider it a "good" recording.

https://we.tl/egKKOo6S3D

Well bringing down a few spikes and bringing each channel up is normalizing :) But this sounds great. For something not made with magic Tascam mics I mean.

hahahaha!!  Admittedly, I don't know the difference from what I do compared to normalizing, I essentially do this at about 1/1000th second at a time.  I don't use the dropdown option.  What exactly does that option do when normalizing?
Thank you, I can be hard on myself when it comes to my own recordings.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: Sloan Simpson on September 18, 2017, 06:01:49 PM
^^^ Isn't it a fun thread? LOLOLOL, totally entertaining! ^^^

Hey for the sake of fun and games, check this set out and see what ya'll think.  It's a WeTransfer link and expires 9/23.  I'm not tying to test anyone, the anal report is included...there are no modifications to sound, all I did was individually bring down a few spikes and then bring each channel up...no compressing or normalizing.  I consider it a "good" recording.

https://we.tl/egKKOo6S3D

Well bringing down a few spikes and bringing each channel up is normalizing :) But this sounds great. For something not made with magic Tascam mics I mean.

hahahaha!!  Admittedly, I don't know the difference from what I do compared to normalizing, I essentially do this at about 1/1000th second at a time.  I don't use the dropdown option.  What exactly does that option do when normalizing?
Thank you, I can be hard on myself when it comes to my own recordings.

There are actually two different "normalizations" at play in DAWs, peak normalization (which just amplifies everything equally until any peak reaches 0 or whatever ceiling below 0 you've selected), and RMS or loudness normalization (which amplifies until your RMS or "average" level reaches a specified target, and automatically limits the peaks in order to achieve that). So hand-editing spikes would be like RMS normalization. You're just making the decision for each spike or transient on whether to limit (based on whether it's music or applause) rather than setting a target number.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: goodcooker on September 19, 2017, 10:48:41 AM

Well this thread sure has been fun!

Going to see Black Joe Lewis on Saturday. The sweet spot in the venue is at the soundboard, possibly behind it. I will determine that when I arrive. I plan to run two rigs for at least one set to get a comparison.

Schoeps MK41 > PFA > DR60d

Tascam DR2d internal mics screwed into the Tbar between the MK41s.

Same location so only real variables are that the DR2d internals are cardioid vs the Schoeps are hypercardioid.

I can guess which one I'm going to like better but I'm a little biased towards the sound of externally polarized  powered condenser microphones.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: Scooter123 on September 19, 2017, 11:37:21 AM
If you've been following this thread, then you should know how to use the internals on the DR2D correctly.  The bass roll off is the key. 
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: nak700s on September 19, 2017, 11:47:34 AM
If you've been following this thread, then you should know how to use the internals on the DR2D correctly.  The bass roll off is the key.

Bro, I'm not using anything where the bass roll-off is necessary in any way.  I want my bass, and make sure I have mics that can handle it!  But hey, that's just me.  :shrug:
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: if_then_else on September 19, 2017, 12:19:00 PM
<SARCASM>
If you've been following this thread, then you should know how to use the internals on the DR2D correctly.  The bass roll off is the key.
</SARCASM>
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: nak700s on September 19, 2017, 12:32:00 PM
^^^ I got that...and I was replying in kind.  Unfortunately the tone of voice in my head doesn't translate well to mere words  :wink2:
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: daspyknows on September 19, 2017, 02:44:32 PM
Nak700s  I downloaded, but haven't had a chance to listen yet.  For a second I thought you went  :zoomie1:
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: nak700s on September 19, 2017, 02:54:51 PM
Nak700s  I downloaded, but haven't had a chance to listen yet.  For a second I thought you went  :zoomie1:

A friend bought a ticket for the Prudential Center, NJ and the Nassau Coliseum, NY.  He nailed the recording for the Prudential Center, so he called me up and told me that I was going to the Nassau show.  He mailed me the ticket...oh well, what's a boy to do? What I provided a link for was my pull.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: daspyknows on September 19, 2017, 03:10:38 PM
[quo :zoomie1:te author=nak700s link=topic=182792.msg2240723#msg2240723 date=1505847291]
Nak700s  I downloaded, but haven't had a chance to listen yet.  For a second I thought you went  :zoomie1:

A friend bought a ticket for the Prudential Center, NJ and the Nassau Coliseum, NY.  He nailed the recording for the Prudential Center, so he called me up and told me that I was going to the Nassau show.  He mailed me the ticket...oh well, what's a boy to do? What I provided a link for was my pull.
[/quote]

Good for you.  I will put it on my tablet and give a listen on my long drive Friday.  Have 9 hours in the car heading to San Diego for U2.  Maybe I should leave my Schoeps home and go  :zoomie1: rolling off all the bass since Scooter123 will be running his elitist rig.  Wait, no no no, never.  Need to run a real rig.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: nak700s on September 19, 2017, 04:03:56 PM
^^^   :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: lsd2525 on September 19, 2017, 04:46:31 PM
 :coolguy:
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: rocksuitcase on September 19, 2017, 08:51:37 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^
One of my favorite taping images of all time!
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: daspyknows on September 19, 2017, 09:17:36 PM
I  agree.  Just one question.  Is it open taping or  >:D?
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: andante on September 20, 2017, 09:15:10 AM
Rerun checking his internal mic levels before the Doobie Bros show

(https://i.imgur.com/uPaMp2a.jpg)
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: splumer on September 20, 2017, 09:42:22 AM
:coolguy:

An early image of Furburger?  :bigsmile:
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger on September 29, 2017, 05:13:10 PM
You're incredible. The sheer volume of quality material you produce, and the lengths to which you go, are nothing short of astounding. Thanks, again, for all your efforts!

Russiancrowe is loving these video's and says thank you from his daughters account.

Great work and a big thank you, Steve! I wish The Crystal Ballroom had better acoustics to compliment your video.

Thanks for posting this Steve! Subscribed! I can't wait to see what else you have in the archives.

Thanks again for all of your efforts!! The west-coast recordings have me heading out east. Best to you.

Thanks to Steve and Dennis for sharing the results of all of their hard work. To those of us who cant make it to the shows, this means everything. Looks like a pretty cool set (again), and with the inclusion of the (slow) Sting Me...irresistible!!! Keep on keepin' on!

It begins again....how utterly fantastic. Thanks to both Steve and Dennis. Looks like another killer show.

Thanks once again Steve and Dennis. It's been great hearing all of these shows while I drive all over the place (as always) - sure does make the miles much more interesting! ***These recordings sound amazing, too.***

The fine work you're doing to both preserve and get this incredible music out there for all to share is not under-estimated nor will it be taken for granted...at least not from me! Much, much respect and thanks.

yer fuckin awesome steve, dont know ya but love ya dude, great taping tales and super generous........and yer lucky ya got a Dennis Orr who does the hard stuff, you just have fun

wow. i must have been living under a rock. I'm floored by what i'm seeing here. Marc Ford and Jon hogg and "Omission" as the first song. WOW! downloading now.







such a bunch of punters ol' mic stand'rs are.  with their big taper bags and their little stuffed animals hanging from their mic-stands and their utterly uptight attitudes.

I like to DANCE at a show....bump into mic stands as well :D :D :D


lastly, if you folks are saying anything that actually matters, yer gonna have to speak up, as I can't hear you from up here.

#SonicStudios #NumberONEinTMSpulls #NOSTANDNECESSARY #liarsSUCK
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: jcable77 on September 29, 2017, 08:38:16 PM
Seems your kind of a fan of yourself.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: daspyknows on September 30, 2017, 12:48:33 AM
Sounds like Elaine Duke talking about Puerto Rico.   :banging head:
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: boyacrobat on September 30, 2017, 01:04:39 AM
anyone arguing internals are better than
a reall rig is just plain stupid

they are tight arses who are tight with
cashoulies and scared to carry extra gear in.

logic should be your friend not your enemy

a classic thread
thank you TS   :cheers:
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: nak700s on October 02, 2017, 02:19:38 PM
As much entertainment as this thread has provided me, I just can't believe it's still going on!  Some of the comments here are priceless, and genuinely make me laugh, which is great because I read them at work, and they help relieve the stress.

I have to say, one of the "comments" that Furburger included in his list of praise to him made me question the actual meaning:
"Great work and a big thank you, Steve! I wish The Crystal Ballroom had better acoustics to compliment your video."
I'm not familiar with the Crystal Ballroom, so I ask, are the acoustics there that bad that a good audio recording can't be made, or is it just that the one in question sucks enough for the commenter to remark about it?  Personally, I wouldn't have shared that one if I were Furburger, but that's just me.

I have read some very flattering comments on videos I've posted in the past that, in my opinion, were shitty, but decent enough to post.  I think the commenter is nuts, but really, they're just uneducated on what a good recording is supposed to sound like. 
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: perks on October 02, 2017, 02:56:18 PM
The thing the Crystal Ballroom video is really needing is for someone to add a nice Schoeps recording made from the impact zone as the audio track.

That would be something. It really would be something.  :wink2: :wink2: :wink2:
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: acidjack on October 03, 2017, 11:38:02 AM
As much entertainment as this thread has provided me, I just can't believe it's still going on!  Some of the comments here are priceless, and genuinely make me laugh, which is great because I read them at work, and they help relieve the stress.

I have to say, one of the "comments" that Furburger included in his list of praise to him made me question the actual meaning:
"Great work and a big thank you, Steve! I wish The Crystal Ballroom had better acoustics to compliment your video."
I'm not familiar with the Crystal Ballroom, so I ask, are the acoustics there that bad that a good audio recording can't be made, or is it just that the one in question sucks enough for the commenter to remark about it?  Personally, I wouldn't have shared that one if I were Furburger, but that's just me.

I have read some very flattering comments on videos I've posted in the past that, in my opinion, were shitty, but decent enough to post.  I think the commenter is nuts, but really, they're just uneducated on what a good recording is supposed to sound like.
I've heard some absolutely sick recordings from this venue.. never been there, but it's certainly possible to make a great one.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: drivingwheel on October 03, 2017, 02:34:57 PM
anyone arguing internals are better than
a reall rig is just plain stupid

they are tight arses who are tight with
cashoulies and scared to carry extra gear in.

logic should be your friend not your enemy

a classic thread
thank you TS   :cheers:

Some people are okay with "good enough."
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: dallman on October 03, 2017, 03:58:08 PM
As much entertainment as this thread has provided me, I just can't believe it's still going on!  Some of the comments here are priceless, and genuinely make me laugh, which is great because I read them at work, and they help relieve the stress.

I have to say, one of the "comments" that Furburger included in his list of praise to him made me question the actual meaning:
"Great work and a big thank you, Steve! I wish The Crystal Ballroom had better acoustics to compliment your video."
I'm not familiar with the Crystal Ballroom, so I ask, are the acoustics there that bad that a good audio recording can't be made, or is it just that the one in question sucks enough for the commenter to remark about it? 

https://archive.org/details/UmphreysMcGee2016-03-12.CrystalBallroomPortlandOR_SchoepsMK41
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: daspyknows on October 03, 2017, 10:24:41 PM
anyone arguing internals are better than
a reall rig is just plain stupid

they are tight arses who are tight with
cashoulies and scared to carry extra gear in.

logic should be your friend not your enemy

a classic thread
thank you TS   :cheers:

Some people are okay with "good enough."

That's fine but fluffing just "good enough" when there are much better options and insulting everyone else in the process sure gets old.  The funny thing  is those making the best recordings never have to fluff them.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: drivingwheel on October 05, 2017, 03:22:11 PM
anyone arguing internals are better than
a reall rig is just plain stupid

they are tight arses who are tight with
cashoulies and scared to carry extra gear in.

logic should be your friend not your enemy

a classic thread
thank you TS   :cheers:

Some people are okay with "good enough."

That's fine but fluffing just "good enough" when there are much better options and insulting everyone else in the process sure gets old.  The funny thing  is those making the best recordings never have to fluff them.

Truth - my "solid A" has been rated as "A+++++" by others; thing is, I've never been overly enamored with a recording just because I'm the one who actually hit "record"
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: nak700s on October 05, 2017, 04:40:16 PM
[quote author=drivingwheel link=topic=182792.msg2242241#msg2242241 date=150723133
Truth - my "solid A" has been rated as "A+++++" by others; thing is, I've never been overly enamored with a recording just because I'm the one who actually hit "record"
[/quote]

This is a good point, and I'm glad someone brought it up.  I think, for the most part, a taper is at least slightly biased towards their own recordings.  I'm not suggesting that we can't admit that another recording is better, or acknowledge that others are just as good or better, only that we are intimately familiar with our own.  We are used to a specific sound or tone produced by the equipment that we've chosen because we like it.  I'm no exception, I like the sound I get from my equipment.  Still, I have heard plenty of recordings by others that I thought were better or equally amazing for different reasons.

In my opinion, there is a certain pride that comes with making a good recording.  We remember the situation, where we were, how and what we set up, and of course, the vibe and energy of that show.  Our recordings bring back that feeling.  It's only natural to feel strongly towards something you've made, especially if you're happy with it.  This is why I can understand Furburger's attachment to what he does...of course he takes it to a whole other level, which, let's face it, is basically ludicrous.  Still, I can understand.

Furthermore, I seriously believe that 95% of the people who are downloading our postings are clueless.  They often think they know what they're listening to or have heard of some of the equipment, but they really have no idea what we do.  I always get a kick out of the person who says they were a taper once, because they were with a friend that recorded a few shows.  Someone downloading a show is interested in hearing that show. Maybe they were there and want to have and relive that night or maybe they just like the band and that show had a solid set list, either way, they have their reasons.  More likely than not, they download and listen on inferior equipment and appreciate it on a level that many of us would laugh at, but that's cool, because they're happy.  What happens next: they may like to comment, rate, share or otherwise, what they perceive as amazing.  The thing is, they won't bother to compare.

All this being said, the average listener has no real idea what they're listening to, only that they like it, so it must be the best. 
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: daspyknows on October 07, 2017, 04:37:31 PM
I am at a festival with other taper on the site.  He is running His Schoeps on a stand into a mixpre.  I am running a stealth setup.  I have an extra  DR-2D.  What are the secrets to making it sound as good?  I want to test it out. 
Yes
That said, I fully expect the Schoeps on a stand 5 feet in front will sound best.  Keeping it real.


Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: boyacrobat on October 08, 2017, 01:50:27 AM
I have an extra  DR-2D.  What are the secrets to making it sound as good?
only one that I know of D = get a SBD feed from F.O.H


Yes D lets keep it real.   :bigsmile:
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: Scooter123 on October 08, 2017, 02:10:20 AM
The secret is the bass roll off, from what I've heard.  That is crucial.

Seriously, I do grade my tapes, and the typical Schoeps is "A"  with downgrades "A-" for crowd noise or a bad location.  I've had B+ with Schoeps as well. 

I have had times when the taper Gods shined upon me and made an A+ pull.  They are few and far between. 
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: daspyknows on October 08, 2017, 11:21:53 AM
Scooter there must be more magic than that to make an internals recording sound A+.  If that was the csse any clown could do it, not  just one.  I have an extra DR-2D and willing to run if for a comp if I get those magical setting.  How to point the mics in that special way.  Unfortunately I am dead center in the sweet spot and dont think it works there.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: perks on October 08, 2017, 03:14:24 PM
After you guys figure out how to get the 1 Tascam hand held recorder set up correctly then you will be ready for the next step. Running 4 Tascam hand held recorders at the same time plus shooting vid on 3 phone cameras while getting stank on your hang low with middle aged midwestern womens. Any effort short of this will result in a recording that is 75/85% as good as an elite stand taper recording.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: daspyknows on October 08, 2017, 04:04:22 PM
Thats tough.  Not sure any of the 3 are appealing.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: lsd2525 on October 09, 2017, 08:55:02 AM
After you guys figure out how to get the 1 Tascam hand held recorder set up correctly then you will be ready for the next step. Running 4 Tascam hand held recorders at the same time plus shooting vid on 3 phone cameras while getting stank on your hang low with middle aged midwestern womens. Any effort short of this will result in a recording that is 75/85% as good as an elite stand taper recording.

^^^ This. Stinkfinger is the magic ingredient
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: nak700s on October 09, 2017, 01:59:37 PM
Scooter there must be more magic than that to make an internals recording sound A+.  If that was the csse any clown could do it, not  just one.  I have an extra DR-2D and willing to run if for a comp if I get those magical setting.  How to point the mics in that special way.  Unfortunately I am dead center in the sweet spot and dont think it works there.

It's been a while, but I think I remember Furburger detailing his technique somewhere near the beginning of this thread.  NO, I'm NOT looking for it!  If memory serves, didn't he say something about rolling off the bass (or was it low cut?), keeping the recorder in his shirt pocket and dancing directly in front of the PA.  I think the dancing is important, but I don't know what his specific moves are.  Basically, the sweet spot for sound, in his scenario, is not the sweet spot for the actual sound in the venue.  I would think it's key to remember that the height of the device is NOT at or above head height, but rather inside the crowd at chest height and the location is directly in front of the PA, probably as close as possible.  Beyond that, you may have to look up his recording info...or instructional.  :facepalm:
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: daspyknows on October 09, 2017, 07:55:39 PM
I will have to try it next year.   :banging head:  I could always ask a drunk Wookie to do it since I am taping from the sweet spot.  This festival was the opportunity.  Lots of tapers to comp against. 
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger on October 10, 2017, 12:18:55 PM
Seems your kind of a fan of yourself.


based on mic-stand'r and elitist attitudes, hell to the YEAH!

why?

because ***mic stands are not necessary to obtain an excellent capture***.


neither are 4-figure microphones.


I'd feel like an idiot too if I blew all that money on something inherently unnecessary.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger on October 10, 2017, 12:20:26 PM
anyone arguing internals are better than
a reall rig is just plain stupid

they are tight arses who are tight with
cashoulies and scared to carry extra gear in.

logic should be your friend not your enemy

a classic thread
thank you TS   :cheers:


I bring 2 Tascams AND a vidcam AND battery packS into a show...by myself...THRU metal detectors AND wands (same show), and have shared such methods with many here via PM.


NOT TO MENTION nowhere have I said that internals are "better than".

but they sure can be "equal to" with a bit of knowhow regarding gain, positioning and base taper logic.



try again, though I anticipate you'll fail again.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: Sloan Simpson on October 10, 2017, 12:23:28 PM
Still waiting to hear an "excellent capture" from these toy mics  :iamwithstupid:
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger on October 10, 2017, 12:28:09 PM

"Great work and a big thank you, Steve! I wish The Crystal Ballroom had better acoustics to compliment your video."
I'm not familiar with the Crystal Ballroom, so I ask, are the acoustics there that bad that a good audio recording can't be made, or is it just that the one in question sucks enough for the commenter to remark about it?  Personally, I wouldn't have shared that one if I were Furburger, but that's just me.




comment was from one of my youtube Portland vids from last week (I ran 4 vidcams, and  4 audio decks for all 3 TMS shows in OR and WA, with many, many more to come)....and it was mp3 audio from a vid source, not from mics

the 5.1 Dolby 1080 vidsource is not compatible with youtube ("yet".....the video looks fine, but the audio is just static)....SO, the MAH/mp4 file is uploaded to youtube instead, which is cool, as it's the complete show, just at 720i with mp3 sound

which is probably why the commenter said such, not knowing youtubes upload parameters (at least for the cam I use, maybe other cams in 5.1 work with YT, but not mine)

the actual Sonics audio is up on all base sites (etree/dime/TTD). a few hundred up to 400 for each show. which is pretty good for an unknown band.

of course,  multicam full HD vids with sync'd sound are in the works.



mic stands and "audio only" are SOOOOOO late '90's.....stable video is where it's at, multi-cam even moreso


I'll take Rich Robinson and Marc Ford's ear and them being happy with what I do over what the folks are saying in this thread.


just so you know.


Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger on October 10, 2017, 12:31:16 PM
The thing the Crystal Ballroom video is really needing is for someone to add a nice Schoeps recording made from the impact zone as the audio track.

That would be something. It really would be something.  :wink2: :wink2: :wink2:


BLAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

hit up that grumpy, crusty old fart with his Dead shirt and shitty mic stand all by himself down on the middle of the floor.

I'm sure he had shitty Schoeps or something of the like.

in typical mic stand'r fashion, I extended my hand with a warm smile and said "wow, another taper, other than SF, the first one I've seen on this journey", as I pointed to my gear up in the balcony 60m before showtime.

he said nary a word and stood there with his unkempt mane and beard and waft of "old person smell".

just like a jackass with an unfounded attitude would.

clearly, he's one of you.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger on October 10, 2017, 12:32:05 PM

Some people are okay with "good enough."


and some yootoobrs are commenting on mp3 audio from a vidcam mic.....
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger on October 10, 2017, 12:33:24 PM

That's fine but fluffing just "good enough" when there are much better options and insulting everyone else in the process sure gets old.  The funny thing  is those making the best recordings never have to fluff them.


judging by etree, I'd say my "good enough" Sonics recordings are getting more pulls than the MBHO's, Schwepps, and most other rigs.

and that's withOUT the pulls from dime and TTD mixed in.


just so you know.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger on October 10, 2017, 12:34:32 PM
[quote author=drivingwheel link=topic=182792.msg2242241#msg2242241 date=150723133
Truth - my "solid A" has been rated as "A+++++" by others; thing is, I've never been overly enamored with a recording just because I'm the one who actually hit "record"

This is a good point, and I'm glad someone brought it up.  I think, for the most part, a taper is at least slightly biased towards their own recordings.  I'm not suggesting that we can't admit that another recording is better, or acknowledge that others are just as good or better, only that we are intimately familiar with our own.  We are used to a specific sound or tone produced by the equipment that we've chosen because we like it.  I'm no exception, I like the sound I get from my equipment.  Still, I have heard plenty of recordings by others that I thought were better or equally amazing for different reasons.

In my opinion, there is a certain pride that comes with making a good recording.  We remember the situation, where we were, how and what we set up, and of course, the vibe and energy of that show.  Our recordings bring back that feeling.  It's only natural to feel strongly towards something you've made, especially if you're happy with it.  This is why I can understand Furburger's attachment to what he does...of course he takes it to a whole other level, which, let's face it, is basically ludicrous.  Still, I can understand.

Furthermore, I seriously believe that 95% of the people who are downloading our postings are clueless.  They often think they know what they're listening to or have heard of some of the equipment, but they really have no idea what we do.  I always get a kick out of the person who says they were a taper once, because they were with a friend that recorded a few shows.  Someone downloading a show is interested in hearing that show. Maybe they were there and want to have and relive that night or maybe they just like the band and that show had a solid set list, either way, they have their reasons.  More likely than not, they download and listen on inferior equipment and appreciate it on a level that many of us would laugh at, but that's cool, because they're happy.  What happens next: they may like to comment, rate, share or otherwise, what they perceive as amazing.  The thing is, they won't bother to compare.

All this being said, the average listener has no real idea what they're listening to, only that they like it, so it must be the best.
[/quote]


I dig that you put a lot of thought into your responses.

wait till you see and hear some of my multi-cam TMS vids early next year.


you might change your tune somewhat, maybe even your boardname :D
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger on October 10, 2017, 12:36:05 PM
The secret is the bass roll off, from what I've heard.  That is crucial.

Seriously, I do grade my tapes, and the typical Schoeps is "A"  with downgrades "A-" for crowd noise or a bad location.  I've had B+ with Schoeps as well. 

I have had times when the taper Gods shined upon me and made an A+ pull.  They are few and far between.

I already posted, in this thread, a Schweppes recording that would be a "C" at best.

a muddy, lacking mids and highs mess.


talk about "fluffing", your quoted comment is absolute cotton-candy fabric-softener wrapped up in a big nimbus stratus.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger on October 10, 2017, 12:39:11 PM
After you guys figure out how to get the 1 Tascam hand held recorder set up correctly then you will be ready for the next step. Running 4 Tascam hand held recorders at the same time plus shooting vid on 3 phone cameras while getting stank on your hang low with middle aged midwestern womens. Any effort short of this will result in a recording that is 75/85% as good as an elite stand taper recording.


I don't use phonecams.

and the band is happy with what I do, making these rudimentary armchair comments utterly laughable.

as for the middle-aged midwestern woman, she's 48, a buck thirty, and tighter than the two virgins I banged in my twenties who BOTH left me for 6'6" "African-American" men

of course, the mic-stand'rs will say "you have a tiny dick too Mr. Alaska".

the one with common sense will realize "that's the only way they could find bigger".

you kids keep trying, and I'll keep showing you where you are failing.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger on October 10, 2017, 12:39:53 PM


It's been a while, but I think I remember Furburger detailing his technique somewhere near the beginning of this thread.  NO, I'm NOT looking for it!  If memory serves, didn't he say something about rolling off the bass (or was it low cut?), keeping the recorder in his shirt pocket and dancing directly in front of the PA.  I think the dancing is important, but I don't know what his specific moves are.  Basically, the sweet spot for sound, in his scenario, is not the sweet spot for the actual sound in the venue.  I would think it's key to remember that the height of the device is NOT at or above head height, but rather inside the crowd at chest height and the location is directly in front of the PA, probably as close as possible.  Beyond that, you may have to look up his recording info...or instructional.  :facepalm:


this post is an utter fabrication.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger on October 10, 2017, 12:41:51 PM
Still waiting to hear an "excellent capture" from these toy mics  :iamwithstupid:


I posted links to at least ten of them a couple of months back...if not in this thread, then the other internal mics thread.

Sarah Peacock, Black Mountain, Peter Mulvey, and a good chunk of others.

you kids are all caught up in your cute-but-wrong responses and ignore the proof to keep running your fingers (nee:gums)
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: Sloan Simpson on October 10, 2017, 12:42:31 PM
Still waiting to hear an "excellent capture" from these toy mics  :iamwithstupid:


I posted links to at least ten of them a couple of months back...if not in this thread, then the other internal mics thread.

Sarah Peacock, Black Mountain, Peter Mulvey, and a good chunk of others.

you kids are all caught up in your cute-but-wrong responses and ignore the proof to keep running your fingers (nee:gums)

I haven't heard anything that sounded good, much less "excellent."

Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger on October 10, 2017, 12:45:53 PM


I haven't heard anything that sounded good, much less "excellent."


then clearly you need your hearing checked.


Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: Sloan Simpson on October 10, 2017, 12:49:12 PM


I haven't heard anything that sounded good, much less "excellent."


then clearly you need your hearing checked.

Doesn't anyone who isn't Steve Hagar? Moron.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger on October 10, 2017, 12:58:26 PM
and I've got to bring up the Nak700's guy....didn't he make some post a ways back saying how he'd like to spend some money on something to prove a point, but he was too broke to do so?


yet here I am travelling the US (over 60 shows this year in nearly 20 states), multi-cam-ing and multi-audioing bands across all genres, and getting the job done?




that pretty much sums up to a tee what I'm saying.


buy a bunch of UNnecessary fancy-schmancy products for taping and sit at home broke, or push lo-fi equipment to the max with excellent results and do what I want, when I want, without money being an issue?



the bulk of you old fucks remind me of the first AA meetings I went to years back (8+ years ago, haven't had a drink since....or meetings/sponsors/steps in 6+ years), the "Stag mens group" in the basement of Sacred Heart Cathedral in Fairbanks.


pissing and moaning about (multiple) ex-wives, cranky as fuck, and all old.

really, really old.


I guess in your folks' case, while you lack getting inside of vagina in spades, at least your mic stands #DONTTALKBACK!!!!   :D :D :D :D :D
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger on October 10, 2017, 01:00:37 PM
(https://scontent.ford1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/22279626_1343138255811907_4412618569978764866_n.jpg?oh=508f8b67c0e3a8cfcf7cfcc2643251ad&oe=5A3E3BBA)



Amy and Steve say "HIGH"!
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger on October 10, 2017, 01:02:17 PM
:waiting for Mr. Skalinder to ban the above post and say that it belongs in The Sewer winkie-smilie here:
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger on October 10, 2017, 01:31:40 PM
"awesome" Sturgill Schweppes recording upped ten MONTHS ago, with one hell of a setlist: http://www.dimeadozen.org/torrents-details.php?id=582295


furbys' "shitty" Sonics Sturgill recording upped not even 10 days ago...: http://www.dimeadozen.org/torrents-details.php?id=602332



yet mine has 20 more pulls than the Schweppes one, and is increasing every single day 

(we won't mention the nearly 100 pulls from TTD).




now WHY do you think that is???


inordinate amounts of fluffing from furby, or simple lies from the Schweppes lobby?

shit, I have to go back to '14 on dime to find a Sturgill audio pull that is above my snatches.





I'd have to go with "B" on this one....
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: Sloan Simpson on October 10, 2017, 01:57:48 PM
Eh, if you hadn’t intentionally made it so thin it would be serviceable. Why not give your engineer a full signal to work with?
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: lsd2525 on October 10, 2017, 02:45:05 PM
I miss Dillon Fries. Sigh.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: drivingwheel on October 10, 2017, 03:10:45 PM
After you guys figure out how to get the 1 Tascam hand held recorder set up correctly then you will be ready for the next step. Running 4 Tascam hand held recorders at the same time plus shooting vid on 3 phone cameras while getting stank on your hang low with middle aged midwestern womens. Any effort short of this will result in a recording that is 75/85% as good as an elite stand taper recording.

Buries face in hands and laughs uncontrollably with tears pouring out my face...
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: bombdiggity on October 10, 2017, 03:24:59 PM

mic stands and "audio only" are SOOOOOO late '90's.....stable video is where it's at, multi-cam even moreso


LOLZ. 

I was recording video likely before you were knee high to a grasshopper there whippersnapper (ever seen a VHS-C?).  Most of those sounded "90% as good as" or whatever that shifting standard of standardness is (just plugging in a compatible mic). 

These days for me I'm over video (it's so 80's to me).  I rarely bother unless the musician asks me to and I feel like dealing with it.  I'd much rather enjoy being there experiencing the show real time and hear the show later in really nice quality if I want to listen to it again. 

Priorities and times change... 

Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: drivingwheel on October 10, 2017, 03:36:41 PM

mic stands and "audio only" are SOOOOOO late '90's.....stable video is where it's at, multi-cam even moreso


LOLZ. 

I was recording video likely before you were knee high to a grasshopper there whippersnapper (ever seen a VHS-C?).  Most of those sounded "90% as good as" or whatever that shifting standard of standardness is (just plugging in a compatible mic). 

These days for me I'm over video (it's so 80's to me).  I rarely bother unless the musician asks me to and I feel like dealing with it.  I'd much rather enjoy being there experiencing the show real time and hear the show later in really nice quality if I want to listen to it again. 

Priorities and times change...

He sends 16 bit internal mic sources to be synced to his video to dorrcoq; Steve has likely never actually processed, EQed, FLACed, md5ed/ffpED, then upped and seeded a single one of his own shows, much less synced video to audio.

He loves to puff his chest out, but recording shows with stolen decks and with tickets that others buy for you and hard drives and SDs that others supply because you haven't supported yourself outside of growing pot and selling old merch in your adult life (we can get your ex-girlfriend in on this, if you wann get down...) while nailing middleaged Midwestern nappy D is his only source of pride...
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: drivingwheel on October 10, 2017, 03:38:52 PM
Eh, if you hadn’t intentionally made it so thin it would be serviceable. Why not give your engineer a full signal to work with?

He doesn't understand processing; he's never done his own.

That's why he rolls all the bass off and records in 16b!   

He simply doesn't know any better, and woe to anyone who dares to try and tell anything to The One Who Already Knows Everything Ever About Taping.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: perks on October 10, 2017, 03:43:26 PM
I haven't been able to reconcile the desire for stable video yet no concern about using audio that has noticeable phasing. Wouldn't the same standards apply for both captures? You can mock hippy tapers all day but if they have their mics stationary on a stand they aren't introducing phasing to their recordings unless it was caused by a blowing in the wind. The answer my friend is blowing in the wind. The answer is blowing in the wind.  :headphones:
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: drivingwheel on October 10, 2017, 03:46:15 PM
I haven't been able to reconcile the desire for stable video yet no concern about using audio that has noticible phasing. Wouldn't the same standards apply for both captures? You can mock hippy tapers all day but if they have their mics stationary on a stand they aren't introducing phasing to their recordings unless it was caused by a blowing in the wind. The answer my friend is blowing in the wind. The answer is blowing in the wind.  :headphones:

Standards and logic go out the window when dealing with the supposed greatness that is Steve Hagar.

Pffft.   I'm just so over it; I'll just pass.  Just not worth it.   

The loser is going on ignore here, as well.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger on October 10, 2017, 04:06:27 PM

mic stands and "audio only" are SOOOOOO late '90's.....stable video is where it's at, multi-cam even moreso


LOLZ. 

I was recording video likely before you were knee high to a grasshopper there whippersnapper (ever seen a VHS-C?).  Most of those sounded "90% as good as" or whatever that shifting standard of standardness is (just plugging in a compatible mic). 

These days for me I'm over video (it's so 80's to me).  I rarely bother unless the musician asks me to and I feel like dealing with it.  I'd much rather enjoy being there experiencing the show real time and hear the show later in really nice quality if I want to listen to it again. 

Priorities and times change...


remember when dime had a waiting list (capped at 100K users)?

now it's down to under 60K

if you wanna be in the minority, that's kewl, but most of those folks migrated to yootoob.

#justsoyouknow




mic stands and "audio only" are SOOOOOO late '90's.....stable video is where it's at, multi-cam even moreso


LOLZ. 

I was recording video likely before you were knee high to a grasshopper there whippersnapper (ever seen a VHS-C?).  Most of those sounded "90% as good as" or whatever that shifting standard of standardness is (just plugging in a compatible mic). 

These days for me I'm over video (it's so 80's to me).  I rarely bother unless the musician asks me to and I feel like dealing with it.  I'd much rather enjoy being there experiencing the show real time and hear the show later in really nice quality if I want to listen to it again. 

Priorities and times change...

He sends 16 bit internal mic sources to be synced to his video to dorrcoq; Steve has likely never actually processed, EQed, FLACed, md5ed/ffpED, then upped and seeded a single one of his own shows, much less synced video to audio.

He loves to puff his chest out, but recording shows with stolen decks and with tickets that others buy for you and hard drives and SDs that others supply because you haven't supported yourself outside of growing pot and selling old merch in your adult life (we can get your ex-girlfriend in on this, if you wann get down...) while nailing middleaged Midwestern nappy D is his only source of pride...

neither.
have.
you.


you have your buddy do it for you.

and he's not that great at is at that....what's his name, "hucklive", or something like that.

Jeremy, you've been sour grapes since your years in prison as a teen.

it's prolly not gonna change for you at this stage, unless you change.




Standards and logic go out the window when dealing with the supposed greatness that is Steve Hagar.

Pffft.   I'm just so over it; I'll just pass.  Just not worth it.   

The loser is going on ignore here, as well.


yet.
here.
you.
are.

lack of vagina is a precursor to the sourshorts known as Jeremy. the guy whose bored (sic) name is based on his band that no longer exists, as his bandmates bailed on him.

like his roommates.

and woman.

and employer.

it's sad, really.

:snickers:
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: acidjack on October 10, 2017, 04:09:30 PM

mic stands and "audio only" are SOOOOOO late '90's.....stable video is where it's at, multi-cam even moreso


LOLZ. 

I was recording video likely before you were knee high to a grasshopper there whippersnapper (ever seen a VHS-C?).  Most of those sounded "90% as good as" or whatever that shifting standard of standardness is (just plugging in a compatible mic). 

These days for me I'm over video (it's so 80's to me).  I rarely bother unless the musician asks me to and I feel like dealing with it.  I'd much rather enjoy being there experiencing the show real time and hear the show later in really nice quality if I want to listen to it again. 

Priorities and times change...

Maybe this counts now as "off-topic" but I think the general "shift to video" is interesting. It's pretty close to undeniable that a crap YouTube clip will still be seen by many more people than will hear most actually-good recordings. Or at least I think that's probably the case.

I'm with you, though.... for one, doing video seems like a way, way bigger distraction and hassle both at the show and even more so afterward. Two, I personally don't care about watching videos at all. Maybe it's a generational thing, but I prefer to get information from reading, and music from listening. Video is for TV shows and movies.  I would get little to no additional enjoyment from having vids of all my shows.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: drivingwheel on October 10, 2017, 04:27:08 PM

mic stands and "audio only" are SOOOOOO late '90's.....stable video is where it's at, multi-cam even moreso


LOLZ. 

I was recording video likely before you were knee high to a grasshopper there whippersnapper (ever seen a VHS-C?).  Most of those sounded "90% as good as" or whatever that shifting standard of standardness is (just plugging in a compatible mic). 

These days for me I'm over video (it's so 80's to me).  I rarely bother unless the musician asks me to and I feel like dealing with it.  I'd much rather enjoy being there experiencing the show real time and hear the show later in really nice quality if I want to listen to it again. 

Priorities and times change...


remember when dime had a waiting list (capped at 100K users)?

now it's down to under 60K

if you wanna be in the minority, that's kewl, but most of those folks migrated to yootoob.

#justsoyouknow




mic stands and "audio only" are SOOOOOO late '90's.....stable video is where it's at, multi-cam even moreso


LOLZ. 

I was recording video likely before you were knee high to a grasshopper there whippersnapper (ever seen a VHS-C?).  Most of those sounded "90% as good as" or whatever that shifting standard of standardness is (just plugging in a compatible mic). 

These days for me I'm over video (it's so 80's to me).  I rarely bother unless the musician asks me to and I feel like dealing with it.  I'd much rather enjoy being there experiencing the show real time and hear the show later in really nice quality if I want to listen to it again. 

Priorities and times change...

He sends 16 bit internal mic sources to be synced to his video to dorrcoq; Steve has likely never actually processed, EQed, FLACed, md5ed/ffpED, then upped and seeded a single one of his own shows, much less synced video to audio.

He loves to puff his chest out, but recording shows with stolen decks and with tickets that others buy for you and hard drives and SDs that others supply because you haven't supported yourself outside of growing pot and selling old merch in your adult life (we can get your ex-girlfriend in on this, if you wann get down...) while nailing middleaged Midwestern nappy D is his only source of pride...

neither.
have.
you.


you have your buddy do it for you.

and he's not that great at is at that....what's his name, "hucklive", or something like that.

Jeremy, you've been sour grapes since your years in prison as a teen.

it's prolly not gonna change for you at this stage, unless you change.




Standards and logic go out the window when dealing with the supposed greatness that is Steve Hagar.

Pffft.   I'm just so over it; I'll just pass.  Just not worth it.   

The loser is going on ignore here, as well.


yet.
here.
you.
are.

lack of vagina is a precursor to the sourshorts known as Jeremy. the guy whose bored (sic) name is based on his band that no longer exists, as his bandmates bailed on him.

like his roommates.

and woman.

and employer.

it's sad, really.

:snickers:

Huck has done some...Otter has down some...other folks on here have done a couple...but there are several that I have EQ'ed, tracked, FLACed, md5ed and made the torrent file with TLH, uploaded to the tracker and seeded myself.

You don't even have your own internet - you trade your welfare Meals on Wheels to the elderly lady next door to use her wifi.   PATHETIC.

And my board name, well...we all can't use a euphemism for female genitalia; some of us have matured beyond a fifth grade emotional level.

As for the band...you have no idea, but I'M the one who pulled the plug and quit booking dates, I'M the one who left my job, I'M the one who broke up with my now -ex (who is still a very good friend)...

We broke up because I'm buying a house in MO; she wants to live in IL.

Not like your gf (who is still on my fb to this day) who specifically said that she couldn't deal with you any more because you are a selfish sociopath who refuses to get a job and grow up...


so let's talk about how sour I am...because we all know, the more you're trying to slam someone...the more you're trying to deflect all  your own insecurities onto someone else.

"and.
it.
SHOWS!"
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: bombdiggity on October 10, 2017, 05:22:16 PM

mic stands and "audio only" are SOOOOOO late '90's.....stable video is where it's at, multi-cam even moreso


LOLZ. 

I was recording video likely before you were knee high to a grasshopper there whippersnapper (ever seen a VHS-C?).  Most of those sounded "90% as good as" or whatever that shifting standard of standardness is (just plugging in a compatible mic). 

These days for me I'm over video (it's so 80's to me).  I rarely bother unless the musician asks me to and I feel like dealing with it.  I'd much rather enjoy being there experiencing the show real time and hear the show later in really nice quality if I want to listen to it again. 

Priorities and times change...


remember when dime had a waiting list (capped at 100K users)?

now it's down to under 60K

if you wanna be in the minority, that's kewl, but most of those folks migrated to yootoob.

#justsoyouknow





Never once have I ever done anything in taping for how many people might see or hear it.  It's not about seeking approval for me or my efforts or about a majority or a minority.

If I recorded for what other people like the most I'd have gone to a lot of really shitty shows, listened to a lot of noise and hardly enjoyed any of it. 

YMMV. 
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger on October 10, 2017, 06:44:10 PM


Huck has done some...Otter has down some...other folks on here have done a couple...but there are several that I have EQ'ed, tracked, FLACed, md5ed and made the torrent file with TLH, uploaded to the tracker and seeded myself.

You don't even have your own internet - you trade your welfare Meals on Wheels to the elderly lady next door to use her wifi.   PATHETIC.

And my board name, well...we all can't use a euphemism for female genitalia; some of us have matured beyond a fifth grade emotional level.

As for the band...you have no idea, but I'M the one who pulled the plug and quit booking dates, I'M the one who left my job, I'M the one who broke up with my now -ex (who is still a very good friend)...

We broke up because I'm buying a house in MO; she wants to live in IL.

Not like your gf (who is still on my fb to this day) who specifically said that she couldn't deal with you any more because you are a selfish sociopath who refuses to get a job and grow up...


so let's talk about how sour I am...because we all know, the more you're trying to slam someone...the more you're trying to deflect all  your own insecurities onto someone else.

"and.
it.
SHOWS!"


you didn't even have a computer when I was there in '11.
or your own place.
or a steady job.
or a gf that lived within 100 miles of you.

yet now you upload torrents all by yourself, have a better job, split up with your girl over *state lines* (BWAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA), and you're the reason Driving Wheel is no more....

what band are you in again?

as for my ex GF, she  put on 60 pounds the year we got together, (and is still a fat tub of lard) has type 2 diabetes that she's ignored for years, yet somehow it was *my* fault that a family didn't get started?

like I'd have a baby with a fat gunt that can't even take care of herself? (nee:  a female version of  you)

I actually have a gf now with a smokin' bod, a sense of humor that matches mine, a desire to fuck, and not label every problem of hers as caused by me. (gotta love the females who can't take ownership of their side of the street)

and a 6-8K a month income that is soon to triple, then most likely increase to tenfold in the next 2 years, *legally* (that "job" that Shoshana so desperately wanted me to have)



your revisionist history is cute, I'll give you that.

"you ran the show at Petes".....BWAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA

good one.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: furburger on October 10, 2017, 06:45:41 PM



Never once have I ever done anything in taping for how many people might see or hear it.  It's not about seeking approval for me or my efforts or about a majority or a minority.

If I recorded for what other people like the most I'd have gone to a lot of really shitty shows, listened to a lot of noise and hardly enjoyed any of it. 

YMMV.

99% of what I tape, I tape for me.

if you wanna get your undies in a bunch over the "arbitrary 1%", be my guest.

my sig sums it up rather nicely, perhaps you missed it.



Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: Sloan Simpson on October 10, 2017, 07:23:27 PM
I miss Dillon Fries. Sigh.

Dillon was at least just crazy instead of insultingly stupid like this furburger.
Title: Re: Internal mics question
Post by: Brian Skalinder on October 10, 2017, 10:34:03 PM
This thread has long since served its purpose.  Locked.

Please don't start another thread, especially for the petty personal BS -- take it to PMs, or better yet, just...stop altogether.