Taperssection.com
Gear / Technical Help => Ask The Tapers => Topic started by: 6079 on April 21, 2007, 09:16:06 PM
-
Let's compare a minidisc recorder with a good mic against the more elaborate rigs, with decks and multiple mics.
Not trying to sound like an idiot, but I just don't know.
Has there been a good test, comparing the same recording settings and circumstances, but using different equipment, as to compare results?
In a typical concert hall, where the sound isn't always so clear, is there a significant difference to be derived?
Another question is your opinion on what the priority is of most important devices/etc. to ensure a great recording (mics, venue, recorder, etc.).
-
I would try the LMA. Good place to compare recordings / rigs. Finding an exact comparison between 2 different rigs at the same show might be difficult, but finding a MD vs. 722 shouldn't be too hard.
I can say for certain that I can easily tell the difference between inexpensive and expensive gear. Not only that, I have also become spoiled over the years. I used to be able to "deal" with my Oktava recordings. No more. I've heard too many good recordings from more expensive mics. Now I'm at the point where I'm going to buy some new mics, or just quit taping (most of the shows I go, and want to listen to again, are taped by someone else). Still, Oktava's are better than nothing (I was, sadly, the only taper at the Codetalkers in Boulder the other night).
-
Another question is your opinion on what the priority is of most important devices/etc. to ensure a great recording (mics, venue, recorder, etc.).
location (in the venue), location (did I say that already?), mics, pre, A/D (in this case conversion to wav or atrac for you).
Mini-disc is fine, it is what you define is good sounding to your ears. A majority of the world thinks that 128kbps mp3s sound as good as CDs. If that is you, then MD is fine. HiMD is convienent but you can't control the AD quailty. As Fatah Ruark has pointed out, you listen to more and more live music from stuff recorded at in the belly of MSG to a small jazz club onstage, you will start to hear the shortcommings of mid-priced equipment and compressed formats. Mainly the differences are more subtle: imaging, soundstage and detail rather than distortion and tinniness. You get what you pay for!
-
Another question is your opinion on what the priority is of most important devices/etc. to ensure a great recording (mics, venue, recorder, etc.).
In my experience, the microphone and method of using it is 90+% MOST responsible for the resulting recording quality. This assumes microphone is working correctly without overloads into your choice of deck so recording is not being clipped by anything.
The other 10% or less is first the preamplifier, and more distant third is the A/D processing quality.
-
on THURSDAY April 26th 2007 i will try to make a comparison between:(...the tonight-monday-gig is a solo-artist only without band....doesn´t make any sense taping him.)
iriver H140 rockboxed + Sennheiser MM-HLSO(MKE2 capsules) omnis + 9V bbox
and
Sony MZ-RH1 HI-MD recorder with same mics ....some songs on mic-in with bbox and some songs on line-in with bbox.
will be using 16bit 44,1kHz for both devices.
it will be a small club and a blues-concert.
if i succeed i will post the samples here.
;)
-
Arni - Great idea! I kind of agree with guysonic that the mics are the key: their quality and placement. Much as light is important for photography, and about the same percentage of importance. The best test would be the same songs on each but we will make do with what we have. Thanks for making the effort.
Cheers 8)
-
Arni - Great idea! I kind of agree with guysonic that the mics are the key: their quality and placement. Much as light is important for photography, and about the same percentage of importance. The best test would be the same songs on each but we will make do with what we have. Thanks for making the effort.
Cheers 8)
no problem if u send me a second pair of MM-HLSO MKE2s mics ;D!
-
They're in the mail! ;o)
8)
-
I'll try to do a comparison:
AKG 481 > V3 > iHP-120 (high priced rig)
Church STC-11 > battery box > iHP-140 (low priced rig)
or
Church STC-11 > battery box > DMIC-20 > iHP-140 (medium priced rig)
I usually use my second rig to record the SBD feed, but I'll record an opener using the microphones an the same stand, in the same configuration as described above sometime, soon.
-
samples 1,2 from same show but different songs ;)
sample 1:
sony mz-rh1 HI-MD recorder: MIC-IN(with plugin power)/MM-HLSO omnis(MKE-2 capsules)/(NO BBOX!) manual level at 10(of 30)/HI-SP(256kbit ATRAC3) mode=>WAV=>mp3
http://www.file-upload.net/download-259817/011-RH1-HLSO-MIC-IN-Rigor-Mortis-Group-feat_-Reverent-Frank-TT.mp3.html
sample 2:
iriver h140: MIC-IN = LINE-IN with plugin power/MM-HLSO omnis (MKE-2 capsules)/(NO BBOX!)/AGC-SAFETY-CLIP started with +20dB gain as always when the show starts...the iriver does decrease the gain if needed by itself but NEVER boosts levels("REP" from February 2007)/WAV 16bit 44.1kHz=>mp3
http://www.file-upload.net/download-259826/H140-rockboxed-REP_HLSO-omnis-NO-BBOX.mp3.html
sample 3: from same venue the night before
sony mz-rh1 HI-MD recorder: MM-HLSO omnis(MKE-2 capsules)/BBOX(no bassfilter -16Hz)/manual level control 21 of 30/LINE-IN/PCM(WAV)=>mp3
http://www.file-upload.net/download-259830/007-2007-04-26-RH1-BBOX-line-in-PCM-WAV.mp3.html
link to the mics i used mounted to my tshirts collar on left +right side:
http://www.microphonemadness.com/products/mmhlsomsenmi.htm
it was a loud blues-rock show....steve ray vaughan like ;) in a club for approximately 300 people max. and about 150 attended the show.
greets from vienna ;)
-
sample 1:
sony mz-rh1 HI-MD recorder: MIC-IN(with plugin power)/MM-HLSO omnis(MKE-2 capsules)/(NO BBOX!) manual level at 10(of 30)/HI-SP(256kbit ATRAC3) mode=>WAV=>mp3
its definatly going to sound shittier because of the double compression
-
sample 1:
sony mz-rh1 HI-MD recorder: MIC-IN(with plugin power)/MM-HLSO omnis(MKE-2 capsules)/(NO BBOX!) manual level at 10(of 30)/HI-SP(256kbit ATRAC3) mode=>WAV=>mp3
its definatly going to sound shittier because of the double compression
Actually I did a Sony MZ-RH1 PCM recording at the same venue the night before..check my post above ..sample 3.
-
sample 1:
sony mz-rh1 HI-MD recorder: MIC-IN(with plugin power)/MM-HLSO omnis(MKE-2 capsules)/(NO BBOX!) manual level at 10(of 30)/HI-SP(256kbit ATRAC3) mode=>WAV=>mp3
its definatly going to sound shittier because of the double compression
Sorry about a possible uneducated question. What do you mean with "double compression"?
I can see only one (mp3). Thanks in advance. BTW, the sample sounds pretty decent to my ears being MP3.
-
Sorry about a possible uneducated question. What do you mean with "double compression"?
I can see only one (mp3). Thanks in advance. BTW, the sample sounds pretty decent to my ears being MP3.
First compression: HI-SP(256kbit ATRAC3)
Second compression: MP3
-
i encoded to mp3 so you can download the samples...or do u wanna download FLAC or WAV files? ::)
-
i encoded to mp3 so you can download the samples...or do u wanna download FLAC or WAV files? ::)
Arni,
Thanks for the samples and effort!
Sergio
-
i encoded to mp3 so you can download the samples...or do u wanna download FLAC or WAV files? ::)
Thanks for the samples, Arni - MP3's a great, fast, easy way to get sounds to people's ears. I'm not terribly concerned about the MP3 samples, myself, just clarifying the two different compression stages per your question. I wasn't trying to give you a hard time for using compressed (lossy) methods - I think there's a time and place for compressed (lossy) files and everyone decides themselves the right time and place.
-
i encoded to mp3 so you can download the samples...or do u wanna download FLAC or WAV files? ::)
Thanks for the samples, Arni - MP3's a great, fast, easy way to get sounds to people's ears. I'm not terribly concerned about the MP3 samples, myself, just clarifying the two different compression stages per your question. I wasn't trying to give you a hard time for using compressed (lossy) methods - I think there's a time and place for compressed (lossy) files and everyone decides themselves the right time and place.
no problem brian ;), all is fine ;).
-
So my thought is sample 2 sounds the best, followed by sample 1, then sample 3.
What does everyone else think, and does this seem sensible?
-
I actually think the most important thing is proper mic placement.. Even more important then the microphone you have. I have heard SM57'S sound great with proper placement.. But the problem here is you dont always get to place things where you would like.. That is the real struggle of the taper. I have heard very cheap mics placed well sound amazing and I have heard very expensive mics placed poorly sound horrible... So for me its placement first, gear second.
And remember it was not too long ago when everyone thought 16bit 44.1 sounded great... And after all you also have to look at your source, if its a bar band with a shitty PA system the best mics in the world aren't going to make it sound better then it does.
Chris Church
-
So my thought is sample 2 sounds the best, followed by sample 1, then sample 3.
What does everyone else think, and does this seem sensible?
you need to boost high frequencies on your stereo for all 3 samples and then make your decision. in case you did that, thx for judging ;).
MIC-IN on the RH1 let´s me avoid the use of an external preamp for acoustic or moderately loud stuff.
The RH1´s internal preamp is top notch! Way better than the Edirol R-09´s preamp. And i had NO distortion issue on mic-in with my sennheiser mke40´s(HLSC) or my mke2´s(HLSO) with low-sens mic setting on the RH1.
I need to go stealth EVRYTIME i tape, cause in Europe I´ve never seen a mic-stand or a open-taping concert since 1987, when i started with taping. ;)
for a big indoor kind of chili peppers show i wouldn´t use mic-in of course ;), the SPL would be too high for mic-in on the RH1 near the soundboard. at least when you set 2/30 and you still top 0dBs on your levelmeter its time to plugin the bbox to line-in ;).
-
Comparison:
Source: Church STC-11 > battery box > modified D-MIC 20 (optical out) > iRiver iHP-140 vs
Source: AKG C 480 B comb/ CK63-ULS > Lunatec V3 (optical out) > iRiver iHP-120
Not a perfect comparison, but the microphones were on the same microphone stand within inches of each other.
Please, I know it's not a perfect comparison, but it may be worth listening to for comparisions sake.
http://www.cotapers.org/BT/NM2007-05-09.torrent
[ Set One ]
Source: Church STC-11 > battery box > modified D-MIC 20 (optical out) > iRiver iHP-140
Microphone configuration: Spaced 8", 65 degrees (PAS), just in front of SBD, 2' LOC, 7' up
Master format: 44.1 kHz, 16 bit, stereo (.WAV)
Digital transfer: iRiver iHP-140 > USB > PC
Digital editing: WaveLab 5.0a (add pre and post set fades)
Tracking & processing for CD: CD Wave Editor 1.75 > FLAC Frontend 1.7.1/ FLAC 1.1.2
Distribution format: 44.1 kHz, 16 bit, stereo (.FLAC)
[ Set Two ]
Source: AKG C 480 B comb/ CK63-ULS > Lunatec V3 (optical out) > iRiver iHP-120
Microphone configuration: Spaced 12", 65 degrees (PAS), just in front of SBD, 2' LOC, 7' up
Master format: 44.1 kHz, 16 bit, stereo (.WAV)
Digital transfer: iRiver iHP-120 > USB > PC
Digital editing: WaveLab 5.0a (add pre and post set fades)
Tracking & processing for CD: CD Wave Editor 1.75 > FLAC Frontend 1.7.1/ FLAC 1.1.2
Distribution format: 44.1 kHz, 16 bit, stereo (.FLAC)
Recorded by: Chuck Miller (chuck@taperssection.com)