Topic: 722 First Impressions

[Zee]

Well after running this thing for 2 shows I have decided I like it alot. I have not seen any issues with media too slow or any file corruptions yet so Ill report back on that if I see anything. I do like the sound of 4022s in front of this thing, a lot of detail. I think I am going to run my 4022>v2>722 to see what I think of that but for an all in 1 box I think it stands up great. No more SLAs :-) Ill have the trucks show and MMW tracked out and ready to seed when I get back from NOLA next week work has me booked this week.


EDIT:
I wish we had better metering.


Bring on the MULE :-)

 

[nickgregory]

No more SLAs :-)

isnt that a beatiful thing?

EDIT:
I wish we had better metering.

I thought the same thing when I started using, it, but have found it isnt that big of a deal....with 24 bit I am running more conservatively and can normalize a bit later if necessary, but hasnt been thus far

+T on the new toy!

[Zee]

It lights up like a Xmas tree for sure. :-)

Yeah I ran in pretty damn hot for MMW I was FOB and ran it on the Normal gain setting and ran out of room. I was hitting the -3db for a while. Do you all run mic in or line in with p48? I think If Im fob Ill run with the low gain settings.

[nickgregory]

thus far I have only run mic in, with p48 with the low gain settings

[MattD]

Random question, Zee ... have you tried switching from normal to low gain on the fly? While that'd make your levels jump suddenly, (and one channel at a time, too), it might be something worth knowing if it's possible. I also didn't think to run line in if I was running too hot - that's a good idea that might save a recording at some point.

[Lil Kim Jong-Il]

I've only run mic in with P48.  There was some discussion in another thread that the front end on this thing is a common path and that line mode isn't really switching anything out of the signal path.  The only difference then between the two modes would be the input impedence. 

So if you do try the V2, please post your impressions.  With the V2 being transparent and the 722 gain stage possibly not switched out, I want to know if you hear any difference.

You should check your firmware even if you haven't seen any problems.  If you are running 1.24, you really need to get it off there.  SD said there is a bug in there causing buffer overrun problems that explain the media slow errors, the lost data, disk full, etc. 

It is a nice box. It did a great job on the mule show in Charlottesville.

[nickgregory]

Carrington's WSP source from saturday is in the kickdown section with the V2 in front of the 722

[Lil Kim Jong-Il]

Thanks.

[Zee]

Random question, Zee ... have you tried switching from normal to low gain on the fly?

I was thinking of doing this during the show but decided not to. It was not getting any louder and I can live with it being hot 
I will run with the lower gain settings now when I’m FOB.

So if you do try the V2, please post your impressions. With the V2 being transparent and the 722 gain stage possibly not switched out, I want to know if you hear any difference.

You should check your firmware even if you haven't seen any problems. If you are running 1.24, you really need to get it off there. SD said there is

I am at 1.24 however I need to finish building my new PC for Fire wire (ooops... chicken before the egg thing here) I should have this done this week so before I go to mule ill upgrade it.  I don’t know if I’m going to run the V2 during mule or not I might wait until I can run it here in town for a show I don’t care that much about. Run one set with the V2 and one with out the V2.

How many shows do yall leave on this thing? The reason I ask if I don’t have time to finish up my PC I might need to leave trucks and mmw on the hard drive. That will end up being 4 shows maybe more (you know how NOLA during JazzFest can be) on this thing at once.

[MattD]

I've formatted each time I took it out. If you start from a clean format and proceed linearly, you *shouldn't* have any problems, but no promises of that, of course.

[Ray76]

I wander when they ship it , will it have the newer firmware on it, or what..probably a silley question..just thinkin with my hands. im thinkin i ll get mine june or so. its backordered
Ray

[Lil Kim Jong-Il]

I wander when they ship it , will it have the newer firmware on it, or what..probably a silley question..just thinkin with my hands. im thinkin i ll get mine june or so. its backordered
Ray

Your unit will ship with the latest production firmware release that is available at the time it is configured for shipment.  However there's nothing to prevent a new firmware release the day after your unit ships.  The best thing to do is check the SD website.

One thing to keep in mind is that new firmware is not always better firmware.  For instance, I had perfectly working firmware, but updated to the flawed 1.24 so that I could have the improved panel lock feature.   If I had waited, we'd all be enjoying the only known FOB of DAR Panic.  Sometimes it pays to update after others have proven out the release in the field.

[MattD]

I usually follow that too, but I did my stealth job with 1.24 and had no issues other than heat. The recording was for nearly 3 hours straight at 24/96.

[nickgregory]

ran the roll off tonight for the crowes, and damn glad I did....show was bassy as hell, and the tape sounds fantastic....still running original FW, but ran straight for 2:15 with no issues at all, 24/96...this box rocks

[nickgregory]

sweet nick
+t for sticking it out with the 722.

how my old buddy mr. robinson doing ?

the 722 sounds freaking fantastic....shitty ass venue tonight and the tape smokes...

and the robinson brothers....lets just say long live rock and roll...cant wait for asheville!

[Zee]

What did you set the roll off at?

Another question for you guys is the gain control. Do you all like to run it linked and use the balance or do yall use them where gain 1 = mic 1 and gain 2 = mic 2? I was running it linked the other night and I don’t think I like that as much. I had a hard time keeping the levels even.

[Lil Kim Jong-Il]

I run the gain controls as independent controls.  I've never had a piece of gear that used a linked gain control like that so it seems unnatural to me.  It's probably a really nice option if you are calibrating the gain against a test tone, but for a dynamic signal I prefer independent controls.

[MattD]

I only use linked for stealthing, that way I can just boost whichever channel is off in post and not have to worry about the image shifting to one side or the other.

[Mic D]

I run the gain controls as independent controls.

Where is this setting?

[MattD]

Menu - gain linking ... says something about 1/2 or M/S in there, too.

[Zee]

It's probably a really nice option if you are calibrating the gain against a test tone, but for a dynamic signal I prefer independent controls.

I agree with you I had a hard time with the balance control. At first I was thinking man this is neat but I dont know if I like it.

 Im going to get that firmware upgraded tonight. It sure would help If I would have built up my new pc before this thing came in.

[Zee]

the 722 sounds freaking fantastic....shitty ass venue tonight and the tape smokes...

Yep.. MMW smokes from the other night... Im loving the way it sounds.

[marc0789]

No more SLAs :-)

isnt that a beatiful thing?

EDIT:
I wish we had better metering.

I thought the same thing when I started using, it, but have found it isnt that big of a deal....with 24 bit I am running more conservatively and can normalize a bit later if necessary, but hasnt been thus far

+T on the new toy!

if you can't run hot levels at the show, isn't 24 bit kind of a waste of time? I really like Waldron's Fox WSP tapes, but noticed that the levels are kinda weak....figured it must be a metering issue. running *conservatively* when going 24 bit seems to defeat the purpose.

[Zee]

running *conservatively* when going 24 bit seems to defeat the purpose.

I’m confused with this comment can you please elaborate on why you think this. I was under the impression that at 24bit you don’t need to run as hot.

[nickgregory]

What did you set the roll off at?

40 Hz

[Brian]

even at 24 bit i still try to peak at like -3 or -2dB and then I add the gain post by either normalizing or doing a slight compression.

the human ear perceives average loudness over the peaks.  these 24 bit recordings aren't TRUE 24 bits.  just look at the dynamic range spec and do the math.  it's really only like 18 or 19 bits.  there is 6dB of dynamic range per bit.

so even at "24 bit"  I would still run the levels hot.  I've added some minor compression to my copies of Waldron's 24 bits from the fox for my own listening and have enjoyed the results. YMMV

Brian

edit: and yes that means our dat recordings are more like 14.5 bit recordings

[Zee]

even at 24 bit i still try to peak at like -3 or -2dB and then I add the gain post by either normalizing or doing a slight compression.

the human ear perceives average loudness over the peaks.  these 24 bit recordings aren't TRUE 24 bits.  just look at the dynamic range spec and do the math.      it's really only like 18 or 19 bits.  there is 6dB of dynamic range per bit.

so even at "24 bit"  I would still run the levels hot.  I've added some minor compression to my copies of Waldron's 24 bits from the fox for my own listening and have enjoyed the results. YMMV

Brian

edit: and yes that means our dat recordings are more like 14.5 bit recordings

You learn something new everyday....  Thanks for the response.

[Brian Skalinder]

I was under the impression that at 24bit you don’t need to run as hot.

I've heard this batted around a lot, too, and I never understand why.

running *conservatively* when going 24 bit seems to defeat the purpose.

Agreed.  Seems to me, one would want to run the levels hot (i.e. peaking as high as possible without clipping) at 24-bit.  Running the levels hot allows one to capture maximum resolution (a Good Thing), and I don't understand why anyone would not want to do so.  I can understand running 48k, or 96k, instead of 192k sample rate since it saves gobs of space and has much less of a dramatic impact on sound quality, but I don't understand running relatively low levels at 24-bit.

with 24 bit I am running more conservatively and can normalize a bit later if necessary

Nick (or anyone who does so, for that matter) - can you help us understand why you're running more conservative levels at 24-bit?

[Brian]

damn marketing departments are evil i tell ya!  i hear the same thing goes for digital cameras in terms of pixels.  I've heard that the true pixel spec of the camera is  really only like half to 2/3rd's of what is advertised.

"they lie. they lie right to your face" -e. cartman

[dmonterisi]

damn marketing departments are evil i tell ya!  i hear the same thing goes for digital cameras in terms of pixels.  I've heard that the true pixel spec of the camera is  really only like half to 2/3rd's of what is advertised.

"they lie. they lie right to your face" -e. cartman

it depends on the type of sensor, you do need to investigate exactly what they are selling.  in some cameras, you can have multiple sensors per pixel site and not all are used in each image, but i'm not sure exactly the mechanism.  this is not true of all camera designs.  my 20d (single-plate CMOS sensor) gets the full 8.2 megapixel resolution (3520 x 2344 pixels).

[MattD]

Nick (or anyone who does so, for that matter) - can you help us understand why you're running more conservative levels at 24-bit?

In an most open and stealth taping situations, I agree with you, Brian. I can understand being conservative in a stealth situation where you absolutely cannot check levels (security guard's position is in the aisle next to you, or something). I'd rather peak around -20 to -10 and boost later than attempt to come as close to zero as possible.

Mathematically, there is no reason to run conservatively. Even if you're saying you can boost later and still have more resolution than a 16-bit recording, yes, that's true, but in boosting, you also raise the noise floor (you're adding gain to the noise, too). I want to have a good 24-bit recording, not just a recording that's "better than a 16-bit recording."

[Brian]

damn marketing departments are evil i tell ya! i hear the same thing goes for digital cameras in terms of pixels. I've heard that the true pixel spec of the camera is really only like half to 2/3rd's of what is advertised.

"they lie. they lie right to your face" -e. cartman

it depends on the type of sensor, you do need to investigate exactly what they are selling. in some cameras, you can have multiple sensors per pixel site and not all are used in each image, but i'm not sure exactly the mechanism. this is not true of all camera designs. my 20d (single-plate CMOS sensor) gets the full 8.2 megapixel resolution (3520 x 2344 pixels).

right on.  I knew you or one of the other photo guys would chime in. thanks! +T

edit:  in 12 hrs. that is

[Brian]

Nick (or anyone who does so, for that matter) - can you help us understand why you're running more conservative levels at 24-bit?

In an most open and stealth taping situations, I agree with you, Brian. I can understand being conservative in a stealth situation where you absolutely cannot check levels (security guard's position is in the aisle next to you, or something). I'd rather peak around -20 to -10 and boost later than attempt to come as close to zero as possible.

Mathematically, there is no reason to run conservatively. Even if you're saying you can boost later and still have more resolution than a 16-bit recording, yes, that's true, but in boosting, you also raise the noise floor (you're adding gain to the noise, too). I want to have a good 24-bit recording, not just a recording that's "better than a 16-bit recording."

with good compression techniques you won't be raising the noise floor.  with normalizing, yes. you will indeed be raising the noise floor.  this is why i opt for slight compression over straight normalization.

[nickgregory]

Nick (or anyone who does so, for that matter) - can you help us understand why you're running more conservative levels at 24-bit?

right now my concern is that since the box is all in one, and I have not yet pushed the preamp, I am conservative until I get a good confidence level on how far I can push the pre in this box.....that is really all...a comfort level really

[Brian]

c'mon nick, don't be a wuss.  push that mother!

[wboswell]

Alot depends on what and where you are listening.  I like running the levels hot, and overs are fine with me, but I don't like slamming overs during loud passages and having the wave forms looking like a brick.  I'm starting to get a better feel for the metering on the box, but that's mainly due to the fact that I've been running the V3 in front of it...  I have a good grasp of what those levels are telling me.

Personally, I like the linked controls.  I've found that the balance works great and once you get that set, you only have one control to worry about as the show goes on.  You fine tune the balance once, which seems to stay more consistant than the spl during the show, and ride the gain if adjustments need to be made.

[marc0789]

edit: and yes that means our dat recordings are more like 14.5 bit recordings

not if you slam zeroes all the time.

[Brian]

edit: and yes that means our dat recordings are more like 14.5 bit recordings

not if you slam zeroes all the time.

straight from the sbm1 manual:

"Dynaminc Range: more than 90db"

to me that's probably an a-weighted spec. so my guess is 90db is the max. 90/6 = 15

so you are almost there when you ping 0

[scb]

you dont' "have" to run as hot because even peaking at -6, you're still far surpassing a "16 bit dat" recording and getting a lot more dynamic range.  running hotter might be better, but peaking at -6 or so is definitely not a bad thing at 24 bit

[dmonterisi]

you dont' "have" to run as hot because even peaking at -6, you're still far surpassing a "16 bit dat" recording and getting a lot more dynamic range.  running hotter might be better, but peaking at -6 or so is definitely not a bad thing at 24 bit

yeah, but wouldn't you want to maximize the resolution you are getting out of 24bit?  the one time i ran the 722, i was unfamiliar with its metering and after the first song i backed off the levels a little bit.  once i listened to the recording, i was really disappointed that i did.  the first track sounded much more vibrant and dynamic than the next 5 or 6 tracks when i ran more conservatively.  the recording seemed to open up more with the increased levels. 

[trajhip2000]

keep in mind that what we are talking about is linear quantization here, so that no matter how many bits you use for recording, the "step size" is still 6 dB/bit. 24-bit doesn't take the same S/N and divide it into more steps that 16-bit, instead it increases the S/N by reducing the noise floor from the A/D conversion process.  this gives you the alternative of running lower levels but still getting the same or better S/N than if you ran higher levels at 16-bit. from a purely S/N perspective you are still better off running as close to 0 dB as possible, but as soon as you go over 0 dB your S/N drops, sometimes dramatically depending on how far over and whether it was just a few samples (like a drum hit) or something more substantial. so the basic idea is that 24-bit allows you to run levels more conservatively, avoiding overs with a reasonable safety margin, but still getting S/N that is as good or better than 16-bits run hotter.

when we talk about post-recording processing, there is no doubt that doing this at the highest bit level possible is an advantage (mathematically at least, at what point the differences become audible is another question).

I would be careful when comparing recordings run at different levels, it is a well-known phenomenon that even a level difference as small as 0.5 dB can be enough to make the hotter source sound better, even if it's identical otherwise.

Steve

[Zee]

Wow you go to lunch and come back to a lesson in 24bit recording... You guys rock...



The MMW recording I made on Sunday is hot I was hitting -3dbs a lot. The Derick Trucks show is not as hot -8 to -6. So I guess this weekend at mule Ill bump it up.

[wbrisette]

Nick (or anyone who does so, for that matter) - can you help us understand why you're running more conservative levels at 24-bit?

I tend to run at around -10 to -5 dB. I do this because the current firmware in the Deva IV & V doesn't have limiters enabled and I don't ever want to go over 0. Even with the meters on the Deva, it's tough to distinguish -2 dB from 0 dB. There has been some talk about adding something so you know when you hit 0, and limiters are suppose to be enabled in the next rev or two of the firmware. That said, depending on how the limiters sound, I might still run somewhat weak.

Wayne

[nickgregory]

That is my next test...going to enable the limiters on the 722 and run it hot and see what the audible difference is....

[Zee]

That is my next test...going to enable the limiters on the 722 and run it hot and see what the audible difference is....

Yeah I was wondering what they sounded like also. Let us know what you think.. Im not going to run the limiter this weekend.

[MattD]

I just wish I could change the color of 3 of the last 4  LEDs so I only hit red when I clip the unit. I might start using Peak Hold + VU just to get some separation in that red area so I can see what I'm hitting. It's hard to tell if I hit 2 LEDs or 3 at a quick glance.

I also wish the limiter were configurable, like the mp2's was.

[marc0789]

you dont' "have" to run as hot because even peaking at -6, you're still far surpassing a "16 bit dat" recording and getting a lot more dynamic range.  running hotter might be better, but peaking at -6 or so is definitely not a bad thing at 24 bit

yeah, but wouldn't you want to maximize the resolution you are getting out of 24bit?  the one time i ran the 722, i was unfamiliar with its metering and after the first song i backed off the levels a little bit.  once i listened to the recording, i was really disappointed that i did.  the first track sounded much more vibrant and dynamic than the next 5 or 6 tracks when i ran more conservatively.  the recording seemed to open up more with the increased levels. 

not sure if I'm imagining this or not, but after Waldron bumped up the levels as the fox run progressed, definitely improved the listening experience...just noticeably opened up the recording. low levels seem to be more noticeable on a 24 bit recording than 16b, but again, might just be imagining.

[wboswell]

Nick (or anyone who does so, for that matter) - can you help us understand why you're running more conservative levels at 24-bit?

I tend to run at around -10 to -5 dB. I do this because the current firmware in the Deva IV & V doesn't have limiters enabled and I don't ever want to go over 0. Even with the meters on the Deva, it's tough to distinguish -2 dB from 0 dB. There has been some talk about adding something so you know when you hit 0, and limiters are suppose to be enabled in the next rev or two of the firmware. That said, depending on how the limiters sound, I might still run somewhat weak.

Wayne

Have you ever hit 0 with the Deva?  Having run the V3 all kinds of ways, I've never been upset with occasional clips at 16bit.  Even with shows where there were steady overs, the tapes sound fine. 

I've had some overs with the 722 and the clip seems to be very soft, though I've not had nearly the experience with it as I've had with the v3.  But the one time there were noticeable overs (Tim Obrien SBD-seated show and couldn't monitor the levels the whole show), the results were very acceptable...

[nickgregory]

That is my next test...going to enable the limiters on the 722 and run it hot and see what the audible difference is....

Yeah I was wondering what they sounded like also. Let us know what you think.. Im not going to run the limiter this weekend.

I am thinking I will run hot with the limiter for the opener for the crowes on sat...dont want to risk the crowes set

[Brian]

set the limiter and run like you would a dat.  push it too hard and i bet it will sound a little "breathy".  try using it so that it controls transients.

although pushing the levels hard will give a good idea of how the limiter sounds.

either way, let us know!

[Zee]

That is my next test...going to enable the limiters on the 722 and run it hot and see what the audible difference is....

Yeah I was wondering what they sounded like also. Let us know what you think.. Im not going to run the limiter this weekend.

I am thinking I will run hot with the limiter for the opener for the crowes on sat...dont want to risk the crowes set

Yes pleaselet us know 

[nickgregory]

set the limiter and run like you would a dat. push it too hard and i bet it will sound a little "breathy". try using it so that it controls transients.

although pushing the levels hard will give a good idea of how the limiter sounds.

either way, let us know!

this is probably what I will do...turn the limiter on, and run less conservatively and see how it handles it....

may try to run wide open for the opener though

[wbrisette]

Have you ever hit 0 with the Deva? 

Yes. The YMSB/Del McCourey set, I had to crank it up to capture the music, and when people clapped and yelled at the end of the songs, I got the dreaded 0 dB overage. It's not as bad as DAT, but still it's not my best recording. I did an orchestra where at the end of a very silent piece there was a clashing of the cymbals and again I hit the dreaded 0. It's not too bad, but it bugs me that it happened.

Wayne

[BC]

the one time i ran the 722, i was unfamiliar with its metering and after the first song i backed off the levels a little bit.  once i listened to the recording, i was really disappointed that i did.  the first track sounded much more vibrant and dynamic than the next 5 or 6 tracks when i ran more conservatively.  the recording seemed to open up more with the increased levels. 

I think a big factor in this is just the fact that that the 1st part you are listening to is louder. A better test would be to take the two separate sections, boost the quieter track to the loudness of the hotter, and then do the comparison. Usually when comparing sources our ears automatically latch on to the louder source as "better".

[dmonterisi]

the one time i ran the 722, i was unfamiliar with its metering and after the first song i backed off the levels a little bit.  once i listened to the recording, i was really disappointed that i did.  the first track sounded much more vibrant and dynamic than the next 5 or 6 tracks when i ran more conservatively.  the recording seemed to open up more with the increased levels. 

I think a big factor in this is just the fact that that the 1st part you are listening to is louder. A better test would be to take the two separate sections, boost the quieter track to the loudness of the hotter, and then do the comparison. Usually when comparing sources our ears automatically latch on to the louder source as "better".

i do not think that is necessarily a good comparison.  adding gain in wavelab is different from the gain that would be applied by the pre of the 722.  so i don't really think it would be that great of a comparison.  additionally, i am aware of the tendency for our ears to trick our minds into thinking that louder is better.  I am fairly confident in my own ability to hear different aspects of the recordings.  i could hear things present in the first track that were not present in the subsequent tracks and not just because the first track was louder.  there was a better sense of space and definition overall.  you don't have to believe me, but i know what i heard.

[BC]

Nick (or anyone who does so, for that matter) - can you help us understand why you're running more conservative levels at 24-bit?

Like Matt D said, one case is when stealthing and you can't check levels. In that case better to be conservative and boost later. For example, in the case of the V3 w/ 113 dB dynamic range, if you peak at -17dB (really conservative!!) you are still getting 96dB of resolution, equivalent to a DAT recording with the levels perfect and hitting 0.

Another case to be conservative is for recording acoustic/unamplified instruments which can have a huge dynamic range, think drum kits or trumpets close to the source, or perhaps symphony orchestras.  

However, in the case of taping rock shows where the mix coming out of the PA is typically highly compressed to begin with, I don't think there is any reason to run your levels significantly more conservatively just because you are rolling at 24 bit. Maybe back off a couple o' dB just to be safe, but in these situations, I would still be shooting to peak at -3dB at least. However, with the increased dynamic range of 24 bit it doesn't hurt too much to be slightly overconservative, if you peak out at -6dB or so you are still pulling a recording with better or comparable resolution to a 16 bit tape with optimal levels.

Peace,
Ben

[BC]

the one time i ran the 722, i was unfamiliar with its metering and after the first song i backed off the levels a little bit.  once i listened to the recording, i was really disappointed that i did.  the first track sounded much more vibrant and dynamic than the next 5 or 6 tracks when i ran more conservatively.  the recording seemed to open up more with the increased levels. 

I think a big factor in this is just the fact that that the 1st part you are listening to is louder. A better test would be to take the two separate sections, boost the quieter track to the loudness of the hotter, and then do the comparison. Usually when comparing sources our ears automatically latch on to the louder source as "better".

i do not think that is necessarily a good comparison.  adding gain in wavelab is different from the gain that would be applied by the pre of the 722.  so i don't really think it would be that great of a comparison.  additionally, i am aware of the tendency for our ears to trick our minds into thinking that louder is better.  I am fairly confident in my own ability to hear different aspects of the recordings.  i could hear things present in the first track that were not present in the subsequent tracks and not just because the first track was louder.  there was a better sense of space and definition overall.  you don't have to believe me, but i know what i heard.

I have noticed something similar, I was recording a friend's cello recital, ran real conservative the 1st part since I had no idea how loud it would be, then clicked up +5 on the V3 for the 2nd part. On a casual listen the recording definitely opened up for the 2nd part (I really like that description of how the sound changed, that was my exact impression also). I can't say if how much is due to the "loudness" factor and how much is due to a change in the gain. But it totally makes sense that hotter will sound better and more true to the original source (as long as there is no clipping), since hotter levels means the the source material is being recorded at higher resolution.

[Tim]

even at 24 bit i still try to peak at like -3 or -2dB and then I add the gain post by either normalizing or doing a slight compression.

the human ear perceives average loudness over the peaks.  these 24 bit recordings aren't TRUE 24 bits.  just look at the dynamic range spec and do the math.  it's really only like 18 or 19 bits.  there is 6dB of dynamic range per bit.

so even at "24 bit"  I would still run the levels hot.  I've added some minor compression to my copies of Waldron's 24 bits from the fox for my own listening and have enjoyed the results. YMMV

Brian

edit: and yes that means our dat recordings are more like 14.5 bit recordings

Great post Brian... thanks

[sygdwm]

in not sure its been said yet, but i believe it is also advantageous to run somwhat conservative at 24 bit to leave headoom for the dithered 16 bit version. but if its going to stay at 24 bit, then crank away. this what i always did, but ymmv.

[F.O.Bean]

headroom i dont think dithering down really needs 'headroom' the 16-bit copies simplybecome 'compressed' 24-bit copies, w/ (hopefully) the same wav pattern just dithered down

[Brian]

in not sure its been said yet, but i believe it is also advantageous to run somwhat conservative at 24 bit to leave headoom for the dithered 16 bit version. but if its going to stay at 24 bit, then crank away. this what i always did, but ymmv.

at sample rates of 88.2 and above it's going to be VERY hard for the human ear to perceive/hear dither noise, aliasing, processing, etc. because all that noise lives up there in those extreme ultrasonic frequencies.  It's been my experience that when mixing at those sample rates and then resampling down to 44.1, followed by a dither, that it sounds much better than if I had recorded and mixed at 24/44.1.  However every dither has it's own sort of sound which can be anylized.  I think it really comes down to the choice of dither to get the right sound you want from 24 >16.

I guess I'm wondering what you meant by headroom for dither?

edited for spelling and grammar

[trajhip2000]

I'm not sure why you would need headroom for dither either. You *might* need it when resampling, since that step can give peaks higher than in the original file - altho I don't think the levels would go up more than a couple of tenths of a dB at most...

Steve

[BC]

I don't think resampling or dither should affect the peak level. Why would it?

You will definitely need headroom if you plan to eq your recording though.

[nickgregory]

well wont be running the limiter tomorrow...thanks to Scott for pointing this out of the manual:

When limiters are engaged audio on channels 1 and 2 is limited to -6 dBFS

[MattD]

That's not necessarily a bad thing, Nick. I'd still say it's worth trying, if it's an opener you don't care about.

[MattD]

I don't think resampling or dither should affect the peak level. Why would it?

It's possible that a sample that's just below 0 dBFS could have dither noise added to it to push it over. Same goes for the resampling algorithm - it may interpolate samples to be higher (or lower) than the original samples before and after that discrete time.

[nickgregory]

That's not necessarily a bad thing, Nick. I'd still say it's worth trying, if it's an opener you don't care about.

I may try it on the opnener....just dont want to run the risk of ruining the crowes tape...especially since George will be running 4022s into the R1...the MGs have to stand up to this challenge

[MattD]

We already know that the 4022s will smoke the MGs ... it's a question of the R1 vs. the 722.

(Actually on a pure rock show, the MGs are probably favored.)

[nickgregory]

(Actually on a pure rock show, the MGs are probably favored.)

thankfully you corrected yourself so I wouldnt have to

he is running 4022s to sax, then splitting one feed to the R1 and another to sbm to laptop...so it will be interesting to hear the R1s capabilities

[marc0789]

We already know that the 4022s will smoke the MGs ... it's a question of the R1 vs. the 722.

(Actually on a pure rock show, the MGs are probably favored.)

bull. in a good fob sound situation, same stand, nfw. imho.

[dmonterisi]

We already know that the 4022s will smoke the MGs ... it's a question of the R1 vs. the 722.

(Actually on a pure rock show, the MGs are probably favored.)

bull. in a good fob sound situation, same stand, nfw. imho.

i agree with the governor.

[Brian]

care to back those statements up gentleman?



my microphones are better than all of yours anyway

[dmonterisi]

well, i personally think the the non-colored off-axis response of the dpa's/b&k's really gives presence to loud rock recordings and the visceral impact they have.  one of my favorite tapes that i made with the 4022's (and one of the first) is the my morning jacket show from 1/31/04 @ 9:30 club (4022>v3).  the tape, imo, really captures the edge, presence and impact of the band and its sound incredibly well.  don't get me wrong, i *heart* nick's tapes of mmj from the same tour and they are without a doubt the best MG tapes i have heard.  but, i actually like my 930 tapes a bit better just because of the stark and non-colored nature of the tape, it really conveys what i heard and felt that night at the show.  I think the MG's smooth out the tape a little bit, which will be to some people's preference, but i like the unadulterated sound of the 4022's.  as usual, IMO, YMMV, yadda, yadda...

[Brian]

see that wasn't so hard

but you just compared your tape to an MG source of a different show at a different venue with a different PA, and different microphone locations and configurations.

your respnse was nothing more than why you like the DPA's.

you can see where this is going, hence my joke post above

[Ray76]

well, i personally think the the non-colored off-axis response of the dpa's/b&k's really gives presence to loud rock recordings and the visceral impact they have.  one of my favorite tapes that i made with the 4022's (and one of the first) is the my morning jacket show from 1/31/04 @ 9:30 club (4022>v3).  the tape, imo, really captures the edge, presence and impact of the band and its sound incredibly well.  don't get me wrong, i *heart* nick's tapes of mmj from the same tour and they are without a doubt the best MG tapes i have heard.  but, i actually like my 930 tapes a bit better just because of the stark and non-colored nature of the tape, it really conveys what i heard and felt that night at the show.  I think the MG's smooth out the tape a little bit, which will be to some people's preference, but i like the unadulterated sound of the 4022's.  as usual, IMO, YMMV, yadda, yadda...

Damon, what will a pair of those go for about??I was lookin at 4061s, but dont really want omnis. I want some dpas as a stealth set. Think theyd go well with a m2??I hope to own all my new gear by mid summer.

Ray

[dmonterisi]

see that wasn't so hard

but you just compared your tape to an MG source of a different show at a different venue with a different PA, and different microphone locations and configurations.

your respnse was nothing more than why you like the DPA's.

you can see where this is going, hence my joke post above

but the post was in response to a post that said something about MG's outperforming dpa's for loud rock shows or something.  so it's not off the mark to talk about my experience using the mics to tape a loud rock show.  very frew of our comments on gear are based on controlled comparisons with all the gear on 1 stand, except for the piece we are comparing.  and i personally don't think those comparisons tell you much other than which piece of gear sounded a certain way on a given night.

i think most of us who listen critically are able to distinguish how a different piece of gear colors a given sound, based on listening to numerous sources critically and listening for common traits.  for example, i've heard many 4022>v3, mk4>v3, 140>v3 and u89>v3 tapes, since i ran the 4022's, 140's and 89's and have downloaded tons of mk4>v3 tapes.  from listening to many different examples of this gear used in different environments, i feel that i am able to identify traits about each of these setups that makes them identifiable.  so, to me, it's not about controlled comparisons to compare gear, but about long term listening to similar gear run in different places.  ymmv.

[dmonterisi]

well, i personally think the the non-colored off-axis response of the dpa's/b&k's really gives presence to loud rock recordings and the visceral impact they have.  one of my favorite tapes that i made with the 4022's (and one of the first) is the my morning jacket show from 1/31/04 @ 9:30 club (4022>v3).  the tape, imo, really captures the edge, presence and impact of the band and its sound incredibly well.  don't get me wrong, i *heart* nick's tapes of mmj from the same tour and they are without a doubt the best MG tapes i have heard.  but, i actually like my 930 tapes a bit better just because of the stark and non-colored nature of the tape, it really conveys what i heard and felt that night at the show.  I think the MG's smooth out the tape a little bit, which will be to some people's preference, but i like the unadulterated sound of the 4022's.  as usual, IMO, YMMV, yadda, yadda...

Damon, what will a pair of those go for about??I was lookin at 4061s, but dont really want omnis. I want some dpas as a stealth set. Think theyd go well with a m2??I hope to own all my new gear by mid summer.

Ray

i bought and sold my 4022's for about $2300 for the pair with the xy/ortf mount.  like all other european mics, their price has gone up retail so i don't know how that has affected used prices.

what's an m2?  are you referring to an mp2?  i have only heard 1 4022>mp2 source i think and it was stealth and it sounded nice.  i think it was scott brown who used to run that as his stealth rig, you should ask him.

[Brian]

i think most of us who listen critically are able to distinguish how a different piece of gear colors a given sound, based on listening to numerous sources critically and listening for common traits. for example, i've heard many 4022>v3, mk4>v3, 140>v3 and u89>v3 tapes, since i ran the 4022's, 140's and 89's and have downloaded tons of mk4>v3 tapes. from listening to many different examples of this gear used in different environments, i feel that i am able to identify traits about each of these setups that makes them identifiable. so, to me, it's not about controlled comparisons to compare gear, but about long term listening to similar gear run in different places. ymmv.

most definitely agree.  whatever piece of gear "wins out" over many variables is the one you like .  Was that your point?  that after all of these "critical" listens you always end up preferring the DPA/B+K  sources?

edit:  have you tested your ears?  for all i know you can't hear past 12k   having a good set of ears lends to making the listen more "critical" IMO.  I can't hear past 19k FWIW.

[Ray76]

sonosax m2
Thanks for the info bud. Just trying to get a good gauge on prices. I am set on my open mics, but deciding on the stealth ones is gettin me. +T bud.

Ray

[dmonterisi]

i think most of us who listen critically are able to distinguish how a different piece of gear colors a given sound, based on listening to numerous sources critically and listening for common traits. for example, i've heard many 4022>v3, mk4>v3, 140>v3 and u89>v3 tapes, since i ran the 4022's, 140's and 89's and have downloaded tons of mk4>v3 tapes. from listening to many different examples of this gear used in different environments, i feel that i am able to identify traits about each of these setups that makes them identifiable. so, to me, it's not about controlled comparisons to compare gear, but about long term listening to similar gear run in different places. ymmv.

most definitely agree.  whatever piece of gear "wins out" over many variables is the one you like .  Was that your point?  that after all of these "critical" listens you always end up preferring the DPA/B+K  sources?

edit:  have you tested your ears?  for all i know you can't hear past 12k   having a good set of ears lends to making the listen more "critical" IMO.  I can't hear past 19k FWIW.

fuck off, no i have not tested my ears, what good would that do me?  i can't get an ear transplant, can I?

my point, in this limited context was that I really like the 4022's for recording loud rock shows.  I do not always end up preferring the dpa's over the other sources, but as far as purchasing mics again, they would certainly be my first choice.  this is a post from a thread a while back discussing schoeps v. dpa's:

if you're gonna be doing TS section in arenas, don't even bother with the 4022's.  you'll be pissed.  if you are goona go up front or tape in good spots, you can't beat the 4022's.  i hate to sound like Mel Kiper, but the 4022's have an unmatched upside.  on any given night, you can pull the best tape you've ever heard if the sound is good and the mix is good.  but they're not as consistent.  to me, i like the upside, as there is almost always another taper if i'm not happy, but the chances of bringing home the heat on a given night make it worthwhile.  depends what you want.

so i guess what i'm saying overall is that, 1) I don't think it's true that the dpa's are inferior for taping loud rock shows, 2) controlled gear comparisons are not of much use to me, 3) no piece of gear, whether mic or pre or a/d is always the best in all situations, but 4) I prefer the transparency of the 4022's in capturing what you hear. 

i'm not even sure if i'm making sense at this point, you've got me twisting in the wind and all I did was agree with natelsky.

[Brian]

fuck off? check yourself before you riggity wreck yourself.   the only reason i asked is because i wouldn't consider your listens "critical" if you can't hear past 10k.  that's all

sorry for getting you "twisted in the wind".

microphone selection is like music......it's all subjective

and this whole time i was hoping marc would have replied and not you

[dmonterisi]

sonosax m2
Thanks for the info bud. Just trying to get a good gauge on prices. I am set on my open mics, but deciding on the stealth ones is gettin me. +T bud.

Ray

ah, the sax sx-m2...i don't know if i've heard the combo specifically, but i'm sure it would sound good.  the sax will fatten up the bottom end and warm up the tone overall, but i think you'd lose a touch of detail, but nothing to freak out about.  definitely a good stealth option.

[Ray76]

sonosax m2
Thanks for the info bud. Just trying to get a good gauge on prices. I am set on my open mics, but deciding on the stealth ones is gettin me. +T bud.

Ray

ah, the sax sx-m2...i don't know if i've heard the combo specifically, but i'm sure it would sound good.  the sax will fatten up the bottom end and warm up the tone overall, but i think you'd lose a touch of detail, but nothing to freak out about.  definitely a good stealth option.

Im tending to like warmth, specially after hearing some tapes with my wmod ua5.
Thanks again Damon. You the man.

Ray

[dmonterisi]

fuck off? check yourself before you riggity wreck yourself.   the only reason i asked is because i wouldn't consider your listens "critical" if you can't hear past 10k.  that's all

sorry for getting you "twisted in the wind".

microphone selection is like music......it's all subjective

and this whole time i was hoping marc would have replied and not you

just fucking around...no doubt it's all subjective and that's part of what i was trying to say.  but who really knows what i'm trying to say anymore. 

[Brian]

i know...i was too.  i know what you were trying to say.

that DPA's rule your face......which they do

[MattD]

sonosax m2
Thanks for the info bud. Just trying to get a good gauge on prices. I am set on my open mics, but deciding on the stealth ones is gettin me. +T bud.

Ray

ah, the sax sx-m2...i don't know if i've heard the combo specifically, but i'm sure it would sound good.  the sax will fatten up the bottom end and warm up the tone overall, but i think you'd lose a touch of detail, but nothing to freak out about.  definitely a good stealth option.

Im tending to like warmth, specially after hearing some tapes with my wmod ua5.
Thanks again Damon. You the man.

Ray

George Wang runs 4022 > SX-M2 (> mod SBM-1?). I like that preamp a lot. Sorry about starting the mic war, I was just trying to be diplomatic with Nick.

Anyway, 4021s sound better than 4022s

[dmonterisi]

sonosax m2
Thanks for the info bud. Just trying to get a good gauge on prices. I am set on my open mics, but deciding on the stealth ones is gettin me. +T bud.

Ray

ah, the sax sx-m2...i don't know if i've heard the combo specifically, but i'm sure it would sound good.  the sax will fatten up the bottom end and warm up the tone overall, but i think you'd lose a touch of detail, but nothing to freak out about.  definitely a good stealth option.

Im tending to like warmth, specially after hearing some tapes with my wmod ua5.
Thanks again Damon. You the man.

Ray

George Wang runs 4022 > SX-M2 (> mod SBM-1?). I like that preamp a lot. Sorry about starting the mic war, I was just trying to be diplomatic with Nick.

Anyway, 4021s sound better than 4022s

no need to apologize, what else would we geeks talk about?

[Ray76]

sonosax m2
Thanks for the info bud. Just trying to get a good gauge on prices. I am set on my open mics, but deciding on the stealth ones is gettin me. +T bud.

Ray

ah, the sax sx-m2...i don't know if i've heard the combo specifically, but i'm sure it would sound good.  the sax will fatten up the bottom end and warm up the tone overall, but i think you'd lose a touch of detail, but nothing to freak out about.  definitely a good stealth option.

Im tending to like warmth, specially after hearing some tapes with my wmod ua5.
Thanks again Damon. You the man.

Ray

George Wang runs 4022 > SX-M2 (> mod SBM-1?). I like that preamp a lot. Sorry about starting the mic war, I was just trying to be diplomatic with Nick.

Anyway, 4021s sound better than 4022s

I havent heard much 4021 stuff, but a lot of 4022s. Im gonna hit up gewwang. thanks yall.
Ray

[scb]

4021s and 4022s are the same mic.  the cable just comes out of the 21s at a right angle, vs straight out the back on 4022s

[nickgregory]

bunch of angry bastards...if you guys had ears as pristine as mine you would hear the MGs rock

seriously...it is as true here as anywhere, all depends on what you like to hear from your tapes...I prefer the MGs, but a very close second is the 4022s....imo, the MGs just do a better job at bassy shows because while the bass can be overloading, the M20s have a tendency to emphasize the upper end a little better, which creates a more smooth recording imo.   But what the hell do I know anyway, I have wrecked my hearing so much I have to wear earplugs at alot of shows now

[Lil Kim Jong-Il]

I havent heard much 4021 stuff, but a lot of 4022s. Im gonna hit up gewwang. thanks yall.
Ray

Don't waste your time.  Neither of those mics can hold up against the 4023s.

[F.O.Bean]

I havent heard much 4021 stuff, but a lot of 4022s. Im gonna hit up gewwang. thanks yall.
Ray

Don't waste your time. Neither of those mics can hold up against the 4023s.

mmmm, lemo connectors

[Ray76]

4021s and 4022s are the same mic.  the cable just comes out of the 21s at a right angle, vs straight out the back on 4022s

Gotcha. Thanks Scott. Learn something new everyday
Ray

[nickgregory]

alright, ran the 722 wide freaking open last night on both mine and boswells rig...he ran schoeps subcards into the 722 and I ran MG200s into the 722...I have not heard his yet (he tells me it sounds great, tough for me to believe since they were schoeps caps ), but listening to mine now and this sounds fantastic.....in the cases where it had a slight, the 722 has a similar sound to the V3, very slight compression, barely audible....will post more comments after I do some more listening

[nickgregory]

as in full throttle, at 10? pegged WF'nO?
This is where I'm really curious as I run the V3 at 65 -> 70dB regularly. So I'd likely being running this thing at full throttle as well.

no, not full throttle...I have run my levels very conservatively with the 722 so far since I am still learning the unit...and the metering makes it difficult until you get used to it, to try to hit zeros, so I was concerned about overs...well last night, I ran it so I would peak at zero and didnt worry about the occassional over (like i did with the V3 before) and those are the results I was describing....

[F.O.Bean]

i bet it rocks hitting zero occassionally, i found that doing that even opened my old dmic up nicely, and the v3 run open like that is the shizzle, so much dynamic range and such nice levels

[nickgregory]

thanks nick.

no problem...having gotten 4 hours of sleep I sometimes I am not very clear in my typing...

[BC]

i know...i was too.  i know what you were trying to say.

that DPA's rule your face......which they do

truer words were never spoken