Become a Site Supporter and Never see Ads again!

Author Topic: Internal mics question  (Read 14458 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline furburger

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1000
  • Gender: Male
  • UH-LASS-KUH
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #210 on: September 14, 2017, 01:15:53 AM »
Ahhhh, the ongoing source of entertainment that is this thread... Honestly, this is funny at this point.  I save this thread for when I'm bored at work to catch up and make me shake my head at something other than the people I speak to here.  Guys, don't take it so seriously.  Really, don't. Furburger just wants to get a rise out of Daspyknows.  I think it's safe to say that everyone on this site knows that internal microphones, although can surprise us when the stars align, are generally all crap and make recordings that reflect their quality as a microphone.  Real mics, on the other hand will have a sonic leg up on all internals.  Tiny stealthy mics, although often a necessary evil for what many of us do, aren't all that bad, and can make a nice recording.  They are certainly not as high end as a full-sized, high quality microphones, but they can make a very good recording in the right situation.  Sonics, dynamic range, depth, etc are all going to factor into the sound and richness of the recording.  The bottom line, however, is that some people are tone-deaf and won't hear the difference.  That isn't an insult, it's a fact.  Not far above that bottom line is the simple fact that different people like different things, and sound.  Additionally, there is a certain pride
(perhaps not the best choice of words) in our own recordings - when they come out to our liking, of course.  All of these factors come into play when it comes to our opinions about this stuff... so I think everyone needs to be a little bit kinder.  Just sayin'.


the DR-2D internals are not crap.


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

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


it's all about the gain, and the positioning.
-------------
people who are fans of the music, they LOVE what I document and capture...people who are fans of themselves....not so much.

Offline swordfish

  • Trade Count: (3)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 281
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #211 on: September 14, 2017, 05:42:14 AM »

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




so where is it?

mines already up, and doing quite nicely.

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

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

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


As a Waits fan I would like to get my hands to this Mavis recording, no matter if internals or Schoeps.....FIW I did internal mic recordings and Schopes recordings...some good some bad with both equipments...

Offline Sloan Simpson

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3321
  • Gender: Male
    • Southern Shelter
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #212 on: September 14, 2017, 07:56:25 AM »
Here's a gem by the master himself. Bow down to turdburglar. Sweet kenwood eq.  ::)
What happened, you get too spun, warfield too much for you? Jerry was laughing at you. :o
As we all do every time you speak. You literally give me douche chills every time you post
Just go away.

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

VS

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


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

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

he said it sounded "just like being there".

and that's good enough for me.

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

Hahahahahaa
Neumann KM-184> Tascam DR-680

Offline nak700s

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 338
  • Gender: Male
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #213 on: September 14, 2017, 02:32:53 PM »
Ahhhh, the ongoing source of entertainment that is this thread... Honestly, this is funny at this point.  I save this thread for when I'm bored at work to catch up and make me shake my head at something other than the people I speak to here.  Guys, don't take it so seriously.  Really, don't. Furburger just wants to get a rise out of Daspyknows.  I think it's safe to say that everyone on this site knows that internal microphones, although can surprise us when the stars align, are generally all crap and make recordings that reflect their quality as a microphone.  Real mics, on the other hand will have a sonic leg up on all internals.  Tiny stealthy mics, although often a necessary evil for what many of us do, aren't all that bad, and can make a nice recording.  They are certainly not as high end as a full-sized, high quality microphones, but they can make a very good recording in the right situation.  Sonics, dynamic range, depth, etc are all going to factor into the sound and richness of the recording.  The bottom line, however, is that some people are tone-deaf and won't hear the difference.  That isn't an insult, it's a fact.  Not far above that bottom line is the simple fact that different people like different things, and sound.  Additionally, there is a certain pride
(perhaps not the best choice of words) in our own recordings - when they come out to our liking, of course.  All of these factors come into play when it comes to our opinions about this stuff... so I think everyone needs to be a little bit kinder.  Just sayin'.


the DR-2D internals are not crap.


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

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


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

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

Yes, I thought I was very clear when I said that it is possible to pull a good recording with internals...which includes yours.  You can huff and puff all you want, but given an ideal recording situation for both internals and for a high quality pair of microphones, there will be no comparison.  A pair of internals are not equipped to handle what many bands will throw at them, a full size diaphragm with high quality electronics can. Period.
Normal: Nakamichi CM-700's >> SD 744T (or) Sony PCM-M10
Stealth: CA-14c >> CA 9200 >> Edirol R-09HR
Ultra stealth: AudioReality >> AudioReality battery box >> Edirol R-09HR
Simple & Sweet!

Offline daspyknows

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2597
  • Gender: Male
  • Don't ask, don't tell, don't get get caught
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #214 on: September 14, 2017, 03:10:37 PM »
Ahhhh, the ongoing source of entertainment that is this thread... Honestly, this is funny at this point.  I save this thread for when I'm bored at work to catch up and make me shake my head at something other than the people I speak to here.  Guys, don't take it so seriously.  Really, don't. Furburger just wants to get a rise out of Daspyknows.  I think it's safe to say that everyone on this site knows that internal microphones, although can surprise us when the stars align, are generally all crap and make recordings that reflect their quality as a microphone.  Real mics, on the other hand will have a sonic leg up on all internals.  Tiny stealthy mics, although often a necessary evil for what many of us do, aren't all that bad, and can make a nice recording.  They are certainly not as high end as a full-sized, high quality microphones, but they can make a very good recording in the right situation.  Sonics, dynamic range, depth, etc are all going to factor into the sound and richness of the recording.  The bottom line, however, is that some people are tone-deaf and won't hear the difference.  That isn't an insult, it's a fact.  Not far above that bottom line is the simple fact that different people like different things, and sound.  Additionally, there is a certain pride
(perhaps not the best choice of words) in our own recordings - when they come out to our liking, of course.  All of these factors come into play when it comes to our opinions about this stuff... so I think everyone needs to be a little bit kinder.  Just sayin'.


the DR-2D internals are not crap.


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

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


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

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

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

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

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




Offline nak700s

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 338
  • Gender: Male
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #215 on: September 14, 2017, 04:00:37 PM »
Ahhhh, the ongoing source of entertainment that is this thread... Honestly, this is funny at this point.  I save this thread for when I'm bored at work to catch up and make me shake my head at something other than the people I speak to here.  Guys, don't take it so seriously.  Really, don't. Furburger just wants to get a rise out of Daspyknows.  I think it's safe to say that everyone on this site knows that internal microphones, although can surprise us when the stars align, are generally all crap and make recordings that reflect their quality as a microphone.  Real mics, on the other hand will have a sonic leg up on all internals.  Tiny stealthy mics, although often a necessary evil for what many of us do, aren't all that bad, and can make a nice recording.  They are certainly not as high end as a full-sized, high quality microphones, but they can make a very good recording in the right situation.  Sonics, dynamic range, depth, etc are all going to factor into the sound and richness of the recording.  The bottom line, however, is that some people are tone-deaf and won't hear the difference.  That isn't an insult, it's a fact.  Not far above that bottom line is the simple fact that different people like different things, and sound.  Additionally, there is a certain pride
(perhaps not the best choice of words) in our own recordings - when they come out to our liking, of course.  All of these factors come into play when it comes to our opinions about this stuff... so I think everyone needs to be a little bit kinder.  Just sayin'.


the DR-2D internals are not crap.


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Agreed.  Personally, I have no interest in the amount of downloads of a recording since it means virtually nothing at all, other than the possibility that they posted their pull first and it became the most seeded and has the illusion of being popular.  A taper, like myself, will no doubt look at the gear used before they download.  I do, and automatically pass on any internal recordings as well as any equipment I don't particularly care for.  If I want something that I didn't record myself, I will search for the best equipment and location before downloading.  I totally believe that a non-taper (or laymen), will often assume the more downloads, the better the source.  If they're happy, that's all that matters, but could you imagine if their eyes (ahem, or ears) were opened all of a sudden and they listened to a superior recording of something they thought they were happy with? 
Normal: Nakamichi CM-700's >> SD 744T (or) Sony PCM-M10
Stealth: CA-14c >> CA 9200 >> Edirol R-09HR
Ultra stealth: AudioReality >> AudioReality battery box >> Edirol R-09HR
Simple & Sweet!

Offline daspyknows

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2597
  • Gender: Male
  • Don't ask, don't tell, don't get get caught
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #216 on: September 14, 2017, 04:56:33 PM »
Ahhhh, the ongoing source of entertainment that is this thread... Honestly, this is funny at this point.  I save this thread for when I'm bored at work to catch up and make me shake my head at something other than the people I speak to here.  Guys, don't take it so seriously.  Really, don't. Furburger just wants to get a rise out of Daspyknows.  I think it's safe to say that everyone on this site knows that internal microphones, although can surprise us when the stars align, are generally all crap and make recordings that reflect their quality as a microphone.  Real mics, on the other hand will have a sonic leg up on all internals.  Tiny stealthy mics, although often a necessary evil for what many of us do, aren't all that bad, and can make a nice recording.  They are certainly not as high end as a full-sized, high quality microphones, but they can make a very good recording in the right situation.  Sonics, dynamic range, depth, etc are all going to factor into the sound and richness of the recording.  The bottom line, however, is that some people are tone-deaf and won't hear the difference.  That isn't an insult, it's a fact.  Not far above that bottom line is the simple fact that different people like different things, and sound.  Additionally, there is a certain pride
(perhaps not the best choice of words) in our own recordings - when they come out to our liking, of course.  All of these factors come into play when it comes to our opinions about this stuff... so I think everyone needs to be a little bit kinder.  Just sayin'.


the DR-2D internals are not crap.


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Offline nak700s

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 338
  • Gender: Male
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #217 on: September 14, 2017, 05:23:08 PM »
Ahhhh, the ongoing source of entertainment that is this thread... Honestly, this is funny at this point.  I save this thread for when I'm bored at work to catch up and make me shake my head at something other than the people I speak to here.  Guys, don't take it so seriously.  Really, don't. Furburger just wants to get a rise out of Daspyknows.  I think it's safe to say that everyone on this site knows that internal microphones, although can surprise us when the stars align, are generally all crap and make recordings that reflect their quality as a microphone.  Real mics, on the other hand will have a sonic leg up on all internals.  Tiny stealthy mics, although often a necessary evil for what many of us do, aren't all that bad, and can make a nice recording.  They are certainly not as high end as a full-sized, high quality microphones, but they can make a very good recording in the right situation.  Sonics, dynamic range, depth, etc are all going to factor into the sound and richness of the recording.  The bottom line, however, is that some people are tone-deaf and won't hear the difference.  That isn't an insult, it's a fact.  Not far above that bottom line is the simple fact that different people like different things, and sound.  Additionally, there is a certain pride
(perhaps not the best choice of words) in our own recordings - when they come out to our liking, of course.  All of these factors come into play when it comes to our opinions about this stuff... so I think everyone needs to be a little bit kinder.  Just sayin'.


the DR-2D internals are not crap.


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 :clapping: :cheers:
Normal: Nakamichi CM-700's >> SD 744T (or) Sony PCM-M10
Stealth: CA-14c >> CA 9200 >> Edirol R-09HR
Ultra stealth: AudioReality >> AudioReality battery box >> Edirol R-09HR
Simple & Sweet!

Offline hoserama

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 266
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #218 on: September 14, 2017, 10:36:23 PM »
[insert rant here]

[insert derogatory dig at daspy and others]

...and it shows.
Audio: AT943 + SBD feeds
Antennas: Lots of those
Cables: Lots of those
Recorders: Cymatic Utrack24, Cymatic LR16, RME Multiface, (2) Tascam 680, (2) Tascam 2D, Zoom H6, Zoom H4n, and a graveyard of irivers/nomads/minidiscs.

Offline tapeheadtoo

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 257
  • Gender: Female
    • My Dime stuff
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #219 on: September 15, 2017, 02:54:39 PM »
I've been following this thread on and off for amusement value.  And it has been amusing....

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

But: if I were in that not-so-good spot with noisy neighbors running both Schoeps and internals, while the high end external mics might yield a so-so recording the internals will *always* be worse, by a significant margin.
Mics: Schoeps MK4, DPA 4061, AT953
Preamps/BB: Nbox, tinybox, ST-9100, CA-UGLY, SP-SPSB-10
Recorder: Sony M10, Edirol R-09, Zoom H4n, Zoom H6, Tascam DR-2d
Video: Sony HDR-CX520V, Sony HX9V, Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS3, Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS100

Offline nak700s

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 338
  • Gender: Male
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #220 on: September 18, 2017, 05:16:06 PM »
^^^ Isn't it a fun thread? LOLOLOL, totally entertaining! ^^^

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

https://we.tl/egKKOo6S3D

Normal: Nakamichi CM-700's >> SD 744T (or) Sony PCM-M10
Stealth: CA-14c >> CA 9200 >> Edirol R-09HR
Ultra stealth: AudioReality >> AudioReality battery box >> Edirol R-09HR
Simple & Sweet!

Offline Sloan Simpson

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3321
  • Gender: Male
    • Southern Shelter
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #221 on: September 18, 2017, 05:36:50 PM »
^^^ Isn't it a fun thread? LOLOLOL, totally entertaining! ^^^

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

https://we.tl/egKKOo6S3D

Well bringing down a few spikes and bringing each channel up is normalizing :) But this sounds great. For something not made with magic Tascam mics I mean.
Neumann KM-184> Tascam DR-680

Offline nak700s

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 338
  • Gender: Male
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #222 on: September 18, 2017, 05:47:20 PM »
^^^ Isn't it a fun thread? LOLOLOL, totally entertaining! ^^^

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

https://we.tl/egKKOo6S3D

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

hahahaha!!  Admittedly, I don't know the difference from what I do compared to normalizing, I essentially do this at about 1/1000th second at a time.  I don't use the dropdown option.  What exactly does that option do when normalizing?
Thank you, I can be hard on myself when it comes to my own recordings.
Normal: Nakamichi CM-700's >> SD 744T (or) Sony PCM-M10
Stealth: CA-14c >> CA 9200 >> Edirol R-09HR
Ultra stealth: AudioReality >> AudioReality battery box >> Edirol R-09HR
Simple & Sweet!

Offline Sloan Simpson

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3321
  • Gender: Male
    • Southern Shelter
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #223 on: September 18, 2017, 06:01:49 PM »
^^^ Isn't it a fun thread? LOLOLOL, totally entertaining! ^^^

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

https://we.tl/egKKOo6S3D

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

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

There are actually two different "normalizations" at play in DAWs, peak normalization (which just amplifies everything equally until any peak reaches 0 or whatever ceiling below 0 you've selected), and RMS or loudness normalization (which amplifies until your RMS or "average" level reaches a specified target, and automatically limits the peaks in order to achieve that). So hand-editing spikes would be like RMS normalization. You're just making the decision for each spike or transient on whether to limit (based on whether it's music or applause) rather than setting a target number.
Neumann KM-184> Tascam DR-680

Offline goodcooker

  • Trade Count: (23)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2150
  • Gender: Male
  • goes to 11
Re: Internal mics question
« Reply #224 on: September 19, 2017, 10:48:41 AM »

Well this thread sure has been fun!

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

Schoeps MK41 > PFA > DR60d

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

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

I can guess which one I'm going to like better but I'm a little biased towards the sound of externally polarized  powered condenser microphones.
MK41 > PFA > Aerco MP2/RAD MS2 > DR60d/DR2d
MBHO KA300 > Naiant PFA > SD MixPre6 (currently under construction)

http://www.archive.org/bookmarks/goodcooker

"Are you the Zman?" - fan at Panic 10-08-10 Kansas City

"I don't know who left this perfectly good inflatable wook doll here, but if I'm blowing her up, I'm keeping her." -  hoppedup

 

RSS | Mobile
Page created in 0.205 seconds with 43 queries.
© 2002-2017 Taperssection.com
Powered by SMF
Website Design by Foxtrot Media, Inc., a Baltimore Website Company