Become a Site Supporter and Never see Ads again!

Author Topic: Edirol R-09 internal mics distorting bass drum beats  (Read 8623 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline daspyknows

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2694
  • Gender: Male
  • Don't ask, don't tell, don't get get caught
Re: Edirol R-09 internal mics distorting bass drum beats
« Reply #75 on: July 27, 2017, 03:06:01 PM »
As I said before, I am perfectly fine with your proposal nak700 and have expressed my willingness to take the challenge.  Let's cut through the bullshit once and for all.  Throwing stupid numbers and other nonsense out there proves nothing especially when those making the numerical claims don't understand what they are talking about.  I am willing to take the challenge and willing to back it up by putting bread on the table.  No excuses and no deflections of the questions asked.  As we can all see, I am the only one willing to do that.  Number of downloads,  size of flac files and nonsensical pontificating has NOTHING to do with sound quality.  Can we all agree that sound quality (while subjective to a point) is the ultimate goal? 

Straight comparison.  Exceptional internal mics on a DR-2D versus a shitty old pair of Schoeps MK4's and NBox Platinum rig.

YUP!  I'd really like to hear the direct comparison.  I think it would be great for not only this argument, but the entire community.  Hearing a pair of internals (and maybe Sonics or other mics too), would be a wonderful test.  If actually done, I hope that you would both put up more than one pair of mics, and with no post production, other that raising levels if necessary, we could all hear a variety of different equipment fairly matched against the other.  I only wish I could add my rig to the mix to hear how it holds up.  :wink2:

I am more than willing as I said.  I have a pair of MK4's and MK41's but my son's CA-14 cardiods are also here and he could run those if its music he likes.   

That would be awesome!  I'd love to hear the CA-14's (cardiods) up against the internals and Sonics.  I have Sonics that I no longer use at all, and hardly use internals even in an emergency, but I do use my CA-14's for stealth shows and would like to hear them compared to the Tascam internals.  I am fond of doing tests like this, because it's the only true way to compare mics and equipment. and have run the CA-14's side by side with the Naks.  OK, there's virtually no comparison there, but the CA-14's aren't bad, and or stealth situations, I find they are excellent.

I do have a direct comp between the MK4's and CA-14's from Roger Waters at ATT Park in 2012.  My son ran his rig next to me from the 14th row dead center.  It is posted on a different torrent site.

Offline bombdiggity

  • Trade Count: (11)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2200
Re: Edirol R-09 internal mics distorting bass drum beats
« Reply #76 on: July 27, 2017, 03:32:05 PM »

All things being equal...in my eyes (umm, or ears), would be not enhancing the recording from the sound the equipment produces.  In other words, a simple, straight forward recording, and not altered in post production.


This is a key. 

If the argument is I can use cheap mics and process the result to get something that sounds "better" that may arguably be the case. 

If the argument is I can process anything into something I like better than what I started with that's not even an argument because it is entirely subjective. 

My listening bias is that there are tonal relationships and subtleties that are the most essential part of my listening experience.  I know for a fact a lot of people can't hear that stuff.  They don't listen that way or think that way. 

I try not to eq/process my recordings at all.  Almost everything I hear that's been processed gains some things and loses others but mostly just loses the natural dynamics and relationships, ultimately becoming grating or disturbing in a close listen.  I've heard a lot of the output from the people who "remaster" {heavily process} sources.  While a number of people fawn over the results, to me most of them are very unnatural, grating and hard to listen to (worse in many ways than the original).  IMO if one has to do that to every recording they make there's something wrong. 

Some recording situations/mixes leave no choice but to have to modify the recorded result to address issues in the input.  I don't want to rely on gear where I have to address issues produced by the gear itself.

I suppose in theory if it's all there and uncorrupted one could eq and process the results of internals to get quite close to what looks like the output of a high end rig.  I'm not at all sure it would actually really sound or feel the same though. 
« Last Edit: July 27, 2017, 03:37:22 PM by bombdiggity »
Gear:
Audio:
Schoeps MK4V
Nak CM-100/CM-300 w/ CP-1's or CP-4's
SP-CMC-25
>
Oade C mod R-44  OR
Tinybox > Sony PCM-M10 (formerly Roland R-05) 
Video: Varied, with various outboard mics depending on the situation

Offline nak700s

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 422
  • Gender: Male
Re: Edirol R-09 internal mics distorting bass drum beats
« Reply #77 on: July 27, 2017, 03:34:54 PM »
[quote author=daspyknows link=topic=182924.msg2235581#msg2235581 date=1501182361
I do have a direct comp between the MK4's and CA-14's from Roger Waters at ATT Park in 2012.  My son ran his rig next to me from the 14th row dead center.  It is posted on a different torrent site.
[/quote]

I know what's going to sound better there, but to compare the CA-14's with internals (especially the ones furburger is using) and a pair of Sonics, would be a fair comparison.  That would interest me.
Normal: Nakamichi CM-700's >> SD 744T (or) Sony PCM-M10
Normal: Crown CM-700's >> SD 302 >> SD 744T
Stealth: CA-14c >> CA 9200 >> Edirol R-09HR
Ultra stealth: AudioReality >> AudioReality battery box >> Edirol R-09HR
Simple & Sweet!

Online Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (13)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 11592
  • Gender: Male
Re: Edirol R-09 internal mics distorting bass drum beats
« Reply #78 on: July 27, 2017, 05:12:52 PM »
I strive to capture the moment the way it is presented, not with various whistles and bells designed to alter the sound as we are hearing it in the audience.

Hey Nak, I always enjoy hearing about what motivates tapers to record, and differences in philosophy about doing so.  Mind if I dig a bit and ask a few questions?

I think I understand your stated goal laid out in the first half of that statement.  I take it to mean aiming for reproducing the aural experience you had at the live event, in such a way that the listener can close their eyes and imagine themselves standing were you were when you recorded it.  Is that a fair assessment?  What I'm curious about is the second half of that statement.  Can you flesh out the whistles and bells a bit for me?

Happy to clarify:
In a word, yes.  My personal goal is as you described.  I want to relive the live concert experience when I listen to the recording, as I would hope another listener would be able to feel the same.
As for the whistles and bells, I was referring to the competition.  All things being equal...in my eyes (umm, or ears), would be not enhancing the recording from the sound the equipment produces.  In other words, a simple, straight forward recording, and not altered in post production.
Hope that clears up my thought process, I know I often don't convey my ideas well in print.

And also referencing this-

[..]Ultimately, I like to close my eyes and "be there within the music", but maybe that's just me.  You like mentioning equipment, so I'm sure that you are more than familiar with Sennheiser HD 380 Pro headphones.  I mentioned what I was listening through for a reason.  There is no bass enhancement or any other alterations to tone, just a flat response.  That, in my opinion, is the only true measure to listen to something the way it is originally recorded.  That being the case, "[moving my] bass knob ever so slightly to the right" defeats the purpose of hearing the actual recording the way it was made.  This is also why I proposed no alteration to the sound.  Post production, as we all know, can completely change the sound of the original recording.  I would like to hear raw recordings from both of you without any alterations...from the same spot in the same venue at the same show, and just judge based on equipment and technique. Isn't that, after all, what this whole argument is all about?

I asked because this is at least tangentially relevant to the spat as well as being philosophically interesting to me, and although I have sympathy for your position on this and admire your motivations behind it, I find your goal to be solid yet your conclusions on how it is achieved shaky (and the disconnect between those two things very common). Here's why-

The goal of "sounding like it did there, to me, at that spot" is an appropriate one.  Even though actually achieving that in an objective way for all listeners is basically impossible.  Fortunately we all have a well-honed and super-valuable ability (rarely fully recognized) to overlook all kinds of gross objective differences between the aural experience at the actual event and our meager attempts at reproducing it.  We just need to get enough specific things "close-enough" so that our imagination can take over and leave our critical minds behind via the willing suspension of disbelief to convince ourselves it sounds like it did live.  That's an amazing magic trick for which we as listeners are both magician and audience.

As tapers we are also the fabricators of the magic-trick kit parts, unavoidably.  Everything we do to make a recording effects the sound that we or someone else eventually hears later.  On an equipment level, each microphone sounds different from another, different mic'ing arrangements sound vastly different, downstream gear sounds different, playback speakers and the rooms they are in all sound different from each other and different headphones all sound very different from each other, even to the same listener.  On top of that all listeners are different from one another.  The some headphone will produce a different response at the ear-drum and sound very different to someone else than it will to you. And in most cases, unless specifically and carefully corrected for your own HRTF, no headphone will be "flat" or accurate with respect to the way you hear sound without headphones.  It's not easy to get around all this, and in fact it is essentially impossible at a fully objective level.  Yet we can agree subjectively when some things sound right-enough and when other things sound obviously wrong. We can determine which are vitally important and which are not.  And we can quantify and measure some of these things so that we can adjust and correct for them. At best we can develop an awareness of these influences and work around them.  In practical terms, we only really need to get close enough for the magic to take over so that we can convince ourselves it sounds just like it did live. 

Creating a convincing illusion, while recognizing that doing so is totally illusory and understanding how it fails objectively while working subjectively is an important refinement of the stated goal when figuring out how to best achieve it with our limited means.  Objectively we are forced to admit it still fails horribly, yet not in a way which overly impairs the all important subjective illusion.

I'm not suggesting you change your goal, only your expectations in order to avoid disappointment and develop a clearer and more useful critical view in pursuit of that goal. 
volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values | numeric values > voltages > vibrations > virtual teleportation time-machine experience

Offline nak700s

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 422
  • Gender: Male
Re: Edirol R-09 internal mics distorting bass drum beats
« Reply #79 on: July 27, 2017, 05:36:26 PM »
I strive to capture the moment the way it is presented, not with various whistles and bells designed to alter the sound as we are hearing it in the audience.

Hey Nak, I always enjoy hearing about what motivates tapers to record, and differences in philosophy about doing so.  Mind if I dig a bit and ask a few questions?

I think I understand your stated goal laid out in the first half of that statement.  I take it to mean aiming for reproducing the aural experience you had at the live event, in such a way that the listener can close their eyes and imagine themselves standing were you were when you recorded it.  Is that a fair assessment?  What I'm curious about is the second half of that statement.  Can you flesh out the whistles and bells a bit for me?

Happy to clarify:
In a word, yes.  My personal goal is as you described.  I want to relive the live concert experience when I listen to the recording, as I would hope another listener would be able to feel the same.
As for the whistles and bells, I was referring to the competition.  All things being equal...in my eyes (umm, or ears), would be not enhancing the recording from the sound the equipment produces.  In other words, a simple, straight forward recording, and not altered in post production.
Hope that clears up my thought process, I know I often don't convey my ideas well in print.

And also referencing this-

[..]Ultimately, I like to close my eyes and "be there within the music", but maybe that's just me.  You like mentioning equipment, so I'm sure that you are more than familiar with Sennheiser HD 380 Pro headphones.  I mentioned what I was listening through for a reason.  There is no bass enhancement or any other alterations to tone, just a flat response.  That, in my opinion, is the only true measure to listen to something the way it is originally recorded.  That being the case, "[moving my] bass knob ever so slightly to the right" defeats the purpose of hearing the actual recording the way it was made.  This is also why I proposed no alteration to the sound.  Post production, as we all know, can completely change the sound of the original recording.  I would like to hear raw recordings from both of you without any alterations...from the same spot in the same venue at the same show, and just judge based on equipment and technique. Isn't that, after all, what this whole argument is all about?

I asked because this is at least tangentially relevant to the spat as well as being philosophically interesting to me, and although I have sympathy for your position on this and admire your motivations behind it, I find your goal to be solid yet your conclusions on how it is achieved shaky (and the disconnect between those two things very common). Here's why-

The goal of "sounding like it did there, to me, at that spot" is an appropriate one.  Even though actually achieving that in an objective way for all listeners is basically impossible.  Fortunately we all have a well-honed and super-valuable ability (rarely fully recognized) to overlook all kinds of gross objective differences between the aural experience at the actual event and our meager attempts at reproducing it.  We just need to get enough specific things "close-enough" so that our imagination can take over and leave our critical minds behind via the willing suspension of disbelief to convince ourselves it sounds like it did live.  That's an amazing magic trick for which we as listeners are both magician and audience.

As tapers we are also the fabricators of the magic-trick kit parts, unavoidably.  Everything we do to make a recording effects the sound that we or someone else eventually hears later.  On an equipment level, each microphone sounds different from another, different mic'ing arrangements sound vastly different, downstream gear sounds different, playback speakers and the rooms they are in all sound different from each other and different headphones all sound very different from each other, even to the same listener.  On top of that all listeners are different from one another.  The some headphone will produce a different response at the ear-drum and sound very different to someone else than it will to you. And in most cases, unless specifically and carefully corrected for your own HRTF, no headphone will be "flat" or accurate with respect to the way you hear sound without headphones.  It's not easy to get around all this, and in fact it is essentially impossible at a fully objective level.  Yet we can agree subjectively when some things sound right-enough and when other things sound obviously wrong. We can determine which are vitally important and which are not.  And we can quantify and measure some of these things so that we can adjust and correct for them. At best we can develop an awareness of these influences and work around them.  In practical terms, we only really need to get close enough for the magic to take over so that we can convince ourselves it sounds just like it did live. 

Creating a convincing illusion, while recognizing that doing so is totally illusory and understanding how it fails objectively while working subjectively is an important refinement of the stated goal when figuring out how to best achieve it with our limited means.  Objectively we are forced to admit it still fails horribly, yet not in a way which overly impairs the all important subjective illusion.

I'm not suggesting you change your goal, only your expectations in order to avoid disappointment and develop a clearer and more useful critical view in pursuit of that goal.

I'm not at all disappointed.  If I were, I'd do something about it in order to be happy, or quit taping.  However, I thank you for your concern.
Normal: Nakamichi CM-700's >> SD 744T (or) Sony PCM-M10
Normal: Crown CM-700's >> SD 302 >> SD 744T
Stealth: CA-14c >> CA 9200 >> Edirol R-09HR
Ultra stealth: AudioReality >> AudioReality battery box >> Edirol R-09HR
Simple & Sweet!

Online Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (13)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 11592
  • Gender: Male
Re: Edirol R-09 internal mics distorting bass drum beats
« Reply #80 on: July 27, 2017, 05:48:14 PM »
I didn't think you were disappointed (not sure what that means).  The important conclusion I was trying to get to is in my next post to follow.  Everything we do is has an influence.  That's unavoidable.  Eliminating the bells and whistles is no different than changing anything else in the recording and reproduction chain, and will get you no closer to the "as heard live truth".

Quote
not enhancing the recording
Quote
  In other words, a simple, straight forward recording

A simple straight-forward recording is not straight-forward.  It is an enhancement. 
Just like choosing a different microphone is a different enhancement.

It's all enhancements!
« Last Edit: July 27, 2017, 05:58:57 PM by Gutbucket »
volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values | numeric values > voltages > vibrations > virtual teleportation time-machine experience

Online Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (13)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 11592
  • Gender: Male
Re: Edirol R-09 internal mics distorting bass drum beats
« Reply #81 on: July 27, 2017, 05:50:14 PM »
The conclusion of my bigger post above-

In light of that, with regards to the subjective illusion of "sounding like it did there", I consider post-productions manipulations to be essentially no different than choosing to use different microphones, or different preamps or recorders, or even where to stand in the venue when making the recording.   All those things affect what the end listener hears.  We can't get around or avoid any of them in our efforts to get it "sounding like it did there", a reference which resides only in our memory of the event, and of other similar events we've experienced in the past.  Change a microphone, change EQ, change where you stand to record, all are changing the end listening experience in inevitable ways, no one combination is  objectively truthful, and all those aspects are essentially the same type of manipulation when viewed this way.

Eliminating post production "bells and whistles" from the equation is essentially useful only for tapers trying to level the playing field in their efforts to better assess the influence of gear- how does this microphone sound different that that one?  That's very useful for tapers in selecting the gear and methods they use, but it's elimination is not getting any closer to "how it actually sounded there" in an objective sense, even though it at first seems reasonable that it would be that way.

A convincing illusion is the main goal.  Assessing gear differences and technique differences are minor taper-centric goals nobody but tapers really care about. How to get there is the challenge.  Everything in between the live performance itself and the listener experience of it later via our recordings are manipulations which either help or hinder the achievement of the main goal.
volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values | numeric values > voltages > vibrations > virtual teleportation time-machine experience

Online Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (13)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 11592
  • Gender: Male
Re: Edirol R-09 internal mics distorting bass drum beats
« Reply #82 on: July 27, 2017, 05:56:51 PM »
Ahh, now I get what you were referring to.

Not implying that you are disappointed.  Only that expecting a simple non-post produced recording to be an accurate reproduction of what was heard live is a false hope.  It's a great help in assessing the influence of the tools used to make the simple recording, but its not a path to a more accurate "documentation of what was heard live".
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: 2200
Re: Edirol R-09 internal mics distorting bass drum beats
« Reply #83 on: July 27, 2017, 05:59:02 PM »
Everything in between the live performance itself and the listener experience of it later via our recordings are manipulations which either help or hinder the achievement of the main goal.

I like that perspective. 

I've heard a lot of manipulations that hinder my experience as well as some that enhance.  It's like anything else... 

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

Offline nak700s

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 422
  • Gender: Male
Re: Edirol R-09 internal mics distorting bass drum beats
« Reply #84 on: July 27, 2017, 06:02:21 PM »
The conclusion of my bigger post above-

In light of that, with regards to the subjective illusion of "sounding like it did there", I consider post-productions manipulations to be essentially no different than choosing to use different microphones, or different preamps or recorders, or even where to stand in the venue when making the recording.   All those things affect what the end listener hears.  We can't get around or avoid any of them in our efforts to get it "sounding like it did there", a reference which resides only in our memory of the event, and of other similar events we've experienced in the past.  Change a microphone, change EQ, change where you stand to record, all are changing the end listening experience in inevitable ways, no one combination is  objectively truthful, and all those aspects are essentially the same type of manipulation when viewed this way.

Eliminating post production "bells and whistles" from the equation is essentially useful only for tapers trying to level the playing field in their efforts to better assess the influence of gear- how does this microphone sound different that that one?  That's very useful for tapers in selecting the gear and methods they use, but it's elimination is not getting any closer to "how it actually sounded there" in an objective sense, even though it at first seems reasonable that it would be that way.

A convincing illusion is the main goal.  Assessing gear differences and technique differences are minor taper-centric goals nobody but tapers really care about. How to get there is the challenge.  Everything in between the live performance itself and the listener experience of it later via our recordings are manipulations which either help or hinder the achievement of the main goal.

It may be an illusion, but I might as well try   ;D
Normal: Nakamichi CM-700's >> SD 744T (or) Sony PCM-M10
Normal: Crown CM-700's >> SD 302 >> SD 744T
Stealth: CA-14c >> CA 9200 >> Edirol R-09HR
Ultra stealth: AudioReality >> AudioReality battery box >> Edirol R-09HR
Simple & Sweet!

Offline bombdiggity

  • Trade Count: (11)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2200
Re: Edirol R-09 internal mics distorting bass drum beats
« Reply #85 on: July 27, 2017, 06:06:10 PM »

a simple non-post produced recording {snip} assessing the influence of the tools used to make the simple recording


I'm not sure the arguer/s here would agree this is what the argument is :facepalm: but boiling it down for the rest of us statements like internals are "xx% of/as good/better than" anything from Beethoven's ear horn to Schoeps would seem most testable in those terms if there were any way to test it.  The conflict between subjective and objective seems a little too big in this case to come to terms though. 
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

Online Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (13)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 11592
  • Gender: Male
Re: Edirol R-09 internal mics distorting bass drum beats
« Reply #86 on: July 27, 2017, 06:38:24 PM »
Yes of course, by all means.  Not trying to be argumentative or pedantic, I just I think it's an important distinction to make in assesing methods.

I'll clarify a bit (and suspect Nak will agree with this part)-
Post manipulations made on a live recording (let't just take EQ for now) can do essentially two things-  Make it sound more like it did there or make it sound less like it did there. 

Both of those things are valuable!

~If we EQ a recording to restore the high frequencies cut by using thick windscreens, or by having the recorder stuffed in a shirt pocket or whatever, we are making it sound more like it did there. 
~If we EQ a recording to tame PA boom or unlistenable room reverberance we are making it sound less like it did there.

Both are good things when done appropriately and both are bad things when not done appropriately. The first is what I'm referring to as being no different than any other thing we do when making the recording (if we are honest with ourselves). It's essentially no different than choosing different gear to start with, or a different technique.  The second I think better fits nak700s' objections about not "enhancing" a recording in search of the "what it sounded like there live".  It can be very much about making it sound "better than it did there live".   

That's a bit more nuanced and hopefully accommodating.  Both are valuable methods used to further the subjective magic trick.

No hard feelings I hope.

I'm not sure the arguer/s here would agree this is what the argument is :facepalm: but boiling it down for the rest of us statements like internals are "xx% of/as good/better than" anything from Beethoven's ear horn to Schoeps would seem most testable in those terms if there were any way to test it.  The conflict between subjective and objective seems a little too big in this case to come to terms though. 

Yeah, no apologies for the thread-jack though! 

Carry on combatants..
volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values | numeric values > voltages > vibrations > virtual teleportation time-machine experience

Offline nak700s

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 422
  • Gender: Male
Re: Edirol R-09 internal mics distorting bass drum beats
« Reply #87 on: July 27, 2017, 07:21:22 PM »
Yes of course, by all means.  Not trying to be argumentative or pedantic, I just I think it's an important distinction to make in assesing methods.

I'll clarify a bit (and suspect Nak will agree with this part)-
Post manipulations made on a live recording (let't just take EQ for now) can do essentially two things-  Make it sound more like it did there or make it sound less like it did there. 

Both of those things are valuable!

~If we EQ a recording to restore the high frequencies cut by using thick windscreens, or by having the recorder stuffed in a shirt pocket or whatever, we are making it sound more like it did there. 
~If we EQ a recording to tame PA boom or unlistenable room reverberance we are making it sound less like it did there.

Both are good things when done appropriately and both are bad things when not done appropriately. The first is what I'm referring to as being no different than any other thing we do when making the recording (if we are honest with ourselves). It's essentially no different than choosing different gear to start with, or a different technique.  The second I think better fits nak700s' objections about not "enhancing" a recording in search of the "what it sounded like there live".  It can be very much about making it sound "better than it did there live".   

That's a bit more nuanced and hopefully accommodating.  Both are valuable methods used to further the subjective magic trick.

No hard feelings I hope.

I'm not sure the arguer/s here would agree this is what the argument is :facepalm: but boiling it down for the rest of us statements like internals are "xx% of/as good/better than" anything from Beethoven's ear horn to Schoeps would seem most testable in those terms if there were any way to test it.  The conflict between subjective and objective seems a little too big in this case to come to terms though. 

Yeah, no apologies for the thread-jack though! 

Carry on combatants..

No hard feelings at all.
I understand your comments, and I'm not disagreeing or agreeing with them.  Both circumstances have their place.  If a taper records something that is otherwise unlistenable, but with proper equalization and adjustments, it is now worth listening to, it is a good thing.  On the flip side, more often than not, I hear someone "over producing" a recording to the point that it no longer sounds natural to me.

Either way, however, I think you may have taken a few of my comments out of context with regards to my original statement about not enhancing anything in post production as far as the "competition" between furburger and daspyknows.  Theirs is an argument about specific microphones and gear, not post production.  Therefore, it is prudent to eliminate all external factors and have all conditions remain the same, with the exception of the basic recording gear and their individual recording technique.  All considered, the only thing that remains is a final conclusion to the argument they are having.

Personally, I'm a bit of stickler when it comes to my craft.  Somehow, I doubt that surprises you.  When it comes to recording, I have the attitude of, get it right, or go home.  Although that's being overly tough on myself and far too critical, it pushes me to do the best I can in a given circumstance (I would sooner not go to the show if I can't be in the spot I feel I need to be in order to make a recording I would be happy with).  I enjoy rising to the challenge, and therefore can not hold myself responsible if I do not like the results...knowing I did the best I can.  In post production, I do not take shortcuts (never any compression or bulk edits), which is why so much of my stuff has never seen the light of day (doesn't get posted).  I'm very slow!  When I give something to a friend to post, already edited, I insist he does not fuck with it, and he put it up as it's given to him.  I do not alter the tone, eq, or sound in any way.  The only thing I do, is balance, if necessary, and bring up the levels, because I prefer to record low in the field.  That is me, and I know 95% (this is a generalization in case furburger reads this, knowing how much he likes numbers) of the tapers out there are fond of "fixing" a variety of things in post.  Sometimes, what they do is an improvement, I'm not judging, only stating that isn't what I do.  I am the same way with my photography, which drives other photographers nuts (Personally, I don't know why.  If they can't do it right the first time, maybe they should be doing something else.).  I don't take a photo and photoshop it (I do not even own a single photo-editing program), and I tend to crop on the fly.  Again, that's just me pushing myself.  I like to challenge myself.  It isn't right for everyone, but I'm happy this way.
Normal: Nakamichi CM-700's >> SD 744T (or) Sony PCM-M10
Normal: Crown CM-700's >> SD 302 >> SD 744T
Stealth: CA-14c >> CA 9200 >> Edirol R-09HR
Ultra stealth: AudioReality >> AudioReality battery box >> Edirol R-09HR
Simple & Sweet!

Offline furburger

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1079
  • Gender: Male
  • UH-LASS-KUH
Re: Edirol R-09 internal mics distorting bass drum beats
« Reply #88 on: July 29, 2017, 04:34:17 AM »
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


For those on Dime  here are a few more BHIC shows recorded at a variety of venues.  As far as a comp venue I would suggest Mt. Winery. Bottlerock was the LAST recording made and only one available on my WeTransfer Account.  A number more are available upon request and there are more shows on the schedule. 


http://www.dimeadozen.org/torrents-details.php?id=576746

Ben Harper & The Innocent Criminals
Seaside Stage
Del Mar Racetrack
Del Mar, Ca
November 12, 2016

Recorded from left side of center rail appx30 feet from stage
Schoeps MK4/NBox Platinum Tascam DR-2D 24 Bit 48K

http://www.dimeadozen.org/torrents-details.php?id=569812
Ben Harper and the Innocent Criminals
Fox Theater
Oakland, Ca
August 17, 2016

Recorded by Daspyknows
Dead center first drink rail

Schoeps MK4/NBox Platinum Tascam DR-2D 24 Bit 48K

http://www.dimeadozen.org/torrents-details.php?id=569335
Ben Harper and the Innocent Criminals
Mt. Winery
Saratoga, Ca
San Francisco, Ca
August 16, 2016

Recorded by Daspyknows
Section 3 Row D just off center (16th row)

Schoeps MK4/NBox Platinum Tascam DR-2D 24 Bit 48K


http://www.dimeadozen.org/torrents-details.php?id=558744
Ben Harper & The Innocent Criminals
Fillmore
Philadelphia Pa
April 10,2016

Recorded by Daspyknows
Dead Center appx 40 feet from stage


Schoeps MK4/NBox Platinum Tascam DR-2D 24 Bit 48K


http://www.dimeadozen.org/torrents-details.php?id=558374
Ben Harper & The Innocent Criminals
Beacon Theater
New York, NY
April 7,2016

Recorded by Daspyknows

Loge Row A Seat 34

Schoeps MK4/NBox Platinum Tascam DR-2D 24 Bit 48K

http://www.dimeadozen.org/torrents-details.php?id= 558344
Ben Harper & The Innocent Criminals
College Street Music Hall
New Haven, Ct
April 6,2016

Recorded by Daspyknows

First Drink Rail Right Side of Center Aisle

Schoeps MK4/NBox Platinum Tascam DR-2D 24 Bit 48K


so your suggested "winner" is 20 pulls behind (mine got over 100 in less than 2 days, your like 85 in 2 months), so now you're gonna deflect yet again???


classy, that is.


as for all this pre/post production talk, I'll never introduce any bells and whistles between the mics and the deck.....as any of that crap totally alters what is actually heard.

I mainly tape "heavier" music, so leaving the lo-cut in there, which was designed by the mic manufacturer, when looking back over the last 20 years of using it, was clearly the correct decision.

but all that other junk introduced before the 0's and the 1's hit the card is 10 times worse than a little bit of post-production filtration. I use my ears AND my eyes to make it bounce just right.

and my eyes are *not* looking at a computer monitor.

if I was only relying on my ears, I'd never mess with 'em period.

the link of Ben I posted was raw, the torrent sounds much, much better.


and the 'why' behind that was explained as well.


daspy's Ben is fully over-saturated in three frequencies (already previously mentioned), meaning "over +12dB", on a consistent basis. 

if one wants to continue to fluff an oversaturated, compressed recording, that's their choice.


but it's pretty clear that my Anchorage smokes his Bottlerock, in more ways than one.

and that's even with the crowd noise and a near-fight.


without those, it'd be a worse loss right outta the gate.




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

Offline perks

  • Trade Count: (25)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4211
Re: Edirol R-09 internal mics distorting bass drum beats
« Reply #89 on: July 29, 2017, 11:04:31 AM »
Just putting this out there... basing the quality of a recording on the # of people who download it is specious at best. You could take the same recording captured in 24bit and create torrents of a non resample/dithered version and a version using compressed .mp3 and the heavily manipulated version will get more downloads every time. People on download sites have proven time and time again that quality is not the most important characteristic  they take into consideration when choosing what they will download.
Mics: Schoeps MK5, Schoeps MK41, AT853u (C,SC,H)
Preamps/converters: Schoeps VMS52UB (x2), Nbox (x2), E.A.A. PSP-2 (x2) Grace Lunatec V2 (for sale), Sound Devices MP-2 (for sale), DPA MMA6000, Naiant Tinybox v1.5, Apogee Mini-Me, Benchmark AD2k+
Recorders: Tascam DR-680, Korg MR-1, Edirol R-05, Sony PCM-M10 (x2), Tascam DR-07

 

RSS | Mobile
Page created in 0.225 seconds with 37 queries.
© 2002-2017 Taperssection.com
Powered by SMF
Website Design by Foxtrot Media, Inc., a Baltimore Website Company