Become a Site Supporter and Never see Ads again!

Author Topic: Internal mics question  (Read 14482 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jbosco

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 97
  • Gender: Male
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #45 on: July 18, 2017, 11:10:44 AM »
taped Bush last night in Anchorage, ran both the Sonics > DR-2D and another DR-2D with internals sitting on the armrest of an empty seat (of which there were many)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Offline Sloan Simpson

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3324
  • Gender: Male
    • Southern Shelter
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #46 on: July 18, 2017, 11:21:00 AM »
taped Bush last night in Anchorage, ran both the Sonics > DR-2D and another DR-2D with internals sitting on the armrest of an empty seat (of which there were many)

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

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

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

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

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

Offline Sloan Simpson

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3324
  • Gender: Male
    • Southern Shelter
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #47 on: July 18, 2017, 11:21:55 AM »
My question is at what point did "Sonic Studios" become the standard to measure against? I had a set back in '91 for a while, sure they were easy to stealth, and made a halfway listenable recording at the time, but I'd hardly list them as "nice mics" and as a source Sonics are just above internals and I generally only grab them if they are the only source of I show I really want, or if all other sources are internals.

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

Offline lsd2525

  • Trade Count: (11)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1520
  • Gender: Male
  • Eschew obfuscation
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #48 on: July 18, 2017, 11:35:04 AM »
Having the roll off on is pretty much a sure fire way to decrease bass response ::)

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

Offline jbosco

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 97
  • Gender: Male
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #49 on: July 18, 2017, 11:43:20 AM »
taped Bush last night in Anchorage, ran both the Sonics > DR-2D and another DR-2D with internals sitting on the armrest of an empty seat (of which there were many)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Offline daspyknows

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2600
  • Gender: Male
  • Don't ask, don't tell, don't get get caught
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #50 on: July 18, 2017, 11:52:08 AM »
taped Bush last night in Anchorage, ran both the Sonics > DR-2D and another DR-2D with internals sitting on the armrest of an empty seat (of which there were many)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Offline to_taper

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 68
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #51 on: July 18, 2017, 12:03:03 PM »
Hi all,

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks again,

John

Offline KISSFAN

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 95
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #52 on: July 18, 2017, 01:27:09 PM »
Hi all,

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

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

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (13)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 11365
  • Gender: Male
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #53 on: July 18, 2017, 02:41:54 PM »
One key difference I didn't see mentioned:

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

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

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

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











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

Offline bombdiggity

  • Trade Count: (11)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2116
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #54 on: July 18, 2017, 02:48:54 PM »

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

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


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

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

Offline bombdiggity

  • Trade Count: (11)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2116
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #55 on: July 18, 2017, 02:49:47 PM »
Gear:
Audio:
Schoeps MK4V
Nak CM-100/CM-300 w/ CP-1's or CP-4's
SP-CMC-25
>
Oade C mod R-44  OR
Tinybox > Sony PCM-M10 (formerly Roland R-05) 
Video: Varied, with various outboard mics depending on the situation

Offline daspyknows

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2600
  • Gender: Male
  • Don't ask, don't tell, don't get get caught
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #56 on: July 18, 2017, 04:43:43 PM »
very stealthy.  no one will notice that.

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (13)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 11365
  • Gender: Male
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #57 on: July 18, 2017, 05:31:20 PM »
Heh.  You're right, yet it's always situation dependent..

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

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

Offline furburger

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1000
  • Gender: Male
  • UH-LASS-KUH
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #58 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.
-------------
people who are fans of the music, they LOVE what I document and capture...people who are fans of themselves....not so much.

Offline furburger

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1000
  • Gender: Male
  • UH-LASS-KUH
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #59 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
-------------
people who are fans of the music, they LOVE what I document and capture...people who are fans of themselves....not so much.

 

RSS | Mobile
Page created in 0.26 seconds with 38 queries.
© 2002-2017 Taperssection.com
Powered by SMF
Website Design by Foxtrot Media, Inc., a Baltimore Website Company