Become a Site Supporter and Never see Ads again!

Author Topic: Comparing recordings from pro and amateur setups  (Read 3542 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dede2002

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1201
  • Gender: Male
Re: Comparing recordings from pro and amateur setups
« Reply #15 on: April 28, 2007, 05:36:20 PM »
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
Mics..........................HLSC-1 and HLSO-MICRO
BB and Preamps........MM Micro bb / MM Custom Elite bb / Church 9100
                              
Recorders...................Edirol R-09 / Edirol R-09HR

Offline Brian Skalinder

  • Complaint Dept.
  • Trade Count: (27)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 18704
  • Gender: Male
Re: Comparing recordings from pro and amateur setups
« Reply #16 on: April 28, 2007, 05:45:09 PM »
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.
Milab VM-44 Links >
Naiant IPA (tinybox format) >
Roland R-05

Offline Arni99

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 770
  • Gender: Male
Re: Comparing recordings from pro and amateur setups
« Reply #17 on: April 28, 2007, 06:23:59 PM »
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  ;).
1st: SONY PCM-M10 + DPA 4060's + DPA MPS 6030 power supply (microdot)
2nd: iPhone 5 + "Rode iXY" microphone/"Zoom IQ5" microphone

Offline 6079

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 277
Re: Comparing recordings from pro and amateur setups
« Reply #18 on: May 05, 2007, 08:27:01 PM »
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?
Free Screenings of "Bill Hicks: Revelations" in Portland and Seattle
May 27th & 28th.
info: http://www.BillHicks.org  RSVP: http://Facebook.com/BillHicksNW

Offline Church-Audio

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (43)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 7543
  • Gender: Male
Re: Comparing recordings from pro and amateur setups
« Reply #19 on: May 05, 2007, 08:40:00 PM »
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
for warranty returns email me at
EMAIL Sales@church-audio.com

Offline Arni99

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 770
  • Gender: Male
Re: Comparing recordings from pro and amateur setups
« Reply #20 on: May 06, 2007, 03:32:45 AM »
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 ;).

« Last Edit: May 06, 2007, 03:38:29 AM by Arni99 »
1st: SONY PCM-M10 + DPA 4060's + DPA MPS 6030 power supply (microdot)
2nd: iPhone 5 + "Rode iXY" microphone/"Zoom IQ5" microphone

Offline Chuck

  • Trade Count: (41)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 10448
  • Gender: Male
  • time between the notes...
    • My recordings on the LMA
Re: Comparing recordings from pro and amateur setups
« Reply #21 on: May 10, 2007, 08:47:02 PM »
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)



Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.

Microphones: (2) Microtech Gefell M300, (2) AKG C 480 B comb-ULS/ CK 61/ CK 63, (2) CAD GXL1200 (cardioid and sub-cardioid capsule & electronics mod), (2) Audix M1290-o, (2) Micro capsule active cables w/ Naiant PFA's, (2) Naiant MSH-1O, (2) Naiant AKG Active cables, (2) Church CA-11 (cardioid), (2) CAD C9, (1) Nady SCM-1000 (mod)
Pre-amps: Naiant littlekit v2.0, BM2p+ Edirol UA-5, Church STC-9000
Recorders: Tascam DR-680, iRiver iHP-120 (Rockboxed & RTC mod), Denon DTR-80p

Recordings on the LMA: http://www.archive.org/bookmarks/ChuckM
Recording website & blog: http://www.timebetweenthenotes.com

 

RSS | Mobile
Page created in 0.195 seconds with 34 queries.
© 2002-2017 Taperssection.com
Powered by SMF
Website Design by Foxtrot Media, Inc., a Baltimore Website Company