Become a Site Supporter and Never see Ads again!

Author Topic: Internal mics question  (Read 25709 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline morst

  • Archivist: Camper Van Beethoven & Cracker
  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2818
  • Get in touch if you wanna record Cracker or CVB!
    • Soundscape Preservation Society
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #105 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.
Teams: Neumann, Bay Area Tapers, Multitrack, Pioneertown Tapers, Mac Geeks, Cassette Masters, Poster Collectors, Alumni of teams St Louis, Upper Midwest & Milwaukee / Southern Wisco

Offline furburger

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1320
  • Gender: Male
  • UH-LASS-KUH
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #106 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)
-------------
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: (1)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1320
  • Gender: Male
  • UH-LASS-KUH
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #107 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.
-------------
people who are fans of the music, they LOVE what I document and capture...people who are fans of themselves....not so much.

Offline Limit35

  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 249
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #108 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?

Offline furburger

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1320
  • Gender: Male
  • UH-LASS-KUH
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #109 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.
-------------
people who are fans of the music, they LOVE what I document and capture...people who are fans of themselves....not so much.

Offline Brian Skalinder

  • Complaint Dept.
  • Trade Count: (27)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 18850
  • Gender: Male
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #110 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
Milab VM-44 Links > Fostex FR-2LE or
Naiant IPA (tinybox format) >
Roland R-05

Offline Limit35

  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 249
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #111 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.

Offline furburger

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1320
  • Gender: Male
  • UH-LASS-KUH
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #112 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.
-------------
people who are fans of the music, they LOVE what I document and capture...people who are fans of themselves....not so much.

Offline Brian Skalinder

  • Complaint Dept.
  • Trade Count: (27)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 18850
  • Gender: Male
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #113 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'.



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:
Milab VM-44 Links > Fostex FR-2LE or
Naiant IPA (tinybox format) >
Roland R-05

Offline vanark

  • TDS
  • Trade Count: (29)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 6851
  • If you ain't right, you better get right!
    • The Mudboy Grotto - North Mississippi Allstar fan site
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #114 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.
If you have a problem relating to the Live Music Archive (http://www.archive.org/details/etree) please send an e-mail to us admins at etree(AT)archive(DOT)org or post in the LMA thread here and we'll get on it.

Link to LMA Recordings

Link to Team Dirty South Recordings on the LMA

Mics: AKG C480B/CK61, CK63 | Church Audio CA-11 (cards) (with CA UBB)
Pres: <empty>
Recorders: Tascam DR-60D | Sony PCM-M10

Offline furburger

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1320
  • Gender: Male
  • UH-LASS-KUH
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #115 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.

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

Offline anr

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 358
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #116 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.


Offline furburger

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1320
  • Gender: Male
  • UH-LASS-KUH
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #117 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..... ;)
-------------
people who are fans of the music, they LOVE what I document and capture...people who are fans of themselves....not so much.

Offline daspyknows

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3314
  • Gender: Male
  • Don't ask, don't tell, don't get get caught
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #118 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.

Offline vanark

  • TDS
  • Trade Count: (29)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 6851
  • If you ain't right, you better get right!
    • The Mudboy Grotto - North Mississippi Allstar fan site
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #119 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.


If you have a problem relating to the Live Music Archive (http://www.archive.org/details/etree) please send an e-mail to us admins at etree(AT)archive(DOT)org or post in the LMA thread here and we'll get on it.

Link to LMA Recordings

Link to Team Dirty South Recordings on the LMA

Mics: AKG C480B/CK61, CK63 | Church Audio CA-11 (cards) (with CA UBB)
Pres: <empty>
Recorders: Tascam DR-60D | Sony PCM-M10

 

RSS | Mobile
Page created in 0.323 seconds with 42 queries.
© 2002-2018 Taperssection.com
Powered by SMF