(1) Comparing some semi-decent tapes made with sub-par equipment to tapes made with top-of-the-line equipment from a less than ideal spot (or under circumstances beyond your control) is pretty pointless and reminds me of Schopenhauer's law of entropy:
(2) Whether you're can actually hear the difference is a completely different story.
1.
http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=182924.msg2235302#msg22353022. 20-20 is all the human ear can discern.
so anything "better than that" is pointless.
I guess you can't really tell the difference. Is that a good thing?
having recorded hundreds of shows from both areas, pretty sure I know what I'm talking about.
Let's let others decide. Post yours and I will post mine and how about a poll? Let others decide.
Yes, I do have my opinion and you have yours. If I thought I could make a better recording from the upper levels monkeying around with DR-2D I would do that. In "my opinion" a Schoeps recording from the sweet spot sounds better than an internal mic recording from ANYWHERE in the venue.
mine will get more snatches than yours, then you'll blame geography.
I did nail it, btw.
I've heard your thin, sterile captures.
will even post a sample to save you the trouble of having to download it.
and you *could* make an *equal* recording (I've never said that internals were better-than), if you had the brains.
clearly, you do not.
were you the "parent of the year", or was that Sloan?
perhaps you should focus on that instead of taping a bunch of dead, bloated crap.
I get all you oldhead bluehairs mixed up, so if it wasn't your kid in "wilderness camp" (we *all* know what that means), then my apologies.
I don't even know how to quote as many of the comments I'd like to in one reply...and I'm not going to try. People, people. people, we are all connected within a wonderful community that enjoys preserving live music in the best quality that we are both able to, based on our economic condition, as well as our knowledge and preference for various sonic differences. Although we all enjoy doing the same thing, we all have our own ways of doing things that yield different results. The important thing is, that we are happy with our own results. If we choose to put it out there for others to download and enjoy, that's fantastic, but to judge the 'enjoyment' of others based on them downloading our recordings doesn't mean we are taping gods, it means they like our recordings, are creatures of habit, or simply don't have or know of, better sources. Simply put, they may not know good sound if it bit them in the ass. However, if they are happy with it, isn't that all that really matters?
We are an opinionated lot, there's no question about that, and I am no different than the rest of you. I've been recording live music for approximately 35 years and feel I know a thing or two about it. I have experimented with location, and every configuration of equipment available to me that I could. It's called a learning process. That doesn't make me any more of an authority over anyone else here, but it does give me some insight. Like all of you, my goal was to get to a point where I am happy with my equipment and know how to use it in a multitude of recording situations. I have done this to my satisfaction. The thing is, so have many others here, and they will defend their position (equipment & technique) until the cows come home. I think we can all agree on that last point, can't we?
These things being said, this thread, however entertaining I find it to be, is spinning in a circle with no end in sight. The same things are being reiterated over and over. Why, because some people believe that internal mics, or Sonic Studio mics, or Church Audio mics are just as good, better, or suck compared to real microphones I mean full size, "high quality", or expensive mics. Well, I've got news for ya'll, no matter how misguided some folks may be, what they are doing is right for them. They don't want to be convinced otherwise, and I don't blame them. If they are, they would have been wrong for a long time, or simply become unhappy with all they have recorded. Live and let live. The original poster had a question, that I think at this point, he got way more than he bargained for. However, he did get a lot of food for thought and can make a decision based on all of our knowledge. That's what these forums are all about, right? I know I've asked many question when I've need other opinions or information...and I'm grateful for those who were kind enough to take the time to help.
I have nothing to close with here, but I wrote so much, I felt there should be a closing paragraph...
quoted it all as it's wise, sage advice.
here's where I'm coming from:
when I see 8 people jump on an internals thread in the first day, and all 8 (an arabitrary number) tell the person (usually new to the game) that what they are doing is wrong and that they
need to buy an expensive setup to obtain something even usable, I take great umbrage to that, as I *have* done it on the cheap, and I have made numerous fantastic-sounding recordings....with a deck that hit the market at $150 5-6 years ago (I think, maybe a bit more).
or, it's as if folks are saying internal mics are like the condenser hand-held walkman mics of the 80's.
if I tried and failed miserably, I'd be the first to admit it and say so.
the R-09 internals ***are shitty microphones***...waaaaaaaay too hot, minimal lo-end (or distorted lo-end), and not a very pleasurable internal.
the Zoom H4n (I also own one), isn't much better, BUT it has 100 "level settings"...the R-09 only has 30.
the DR-2D, however, has bascially 140 (lo/med/high gain, each with 100 levels per, however, 0 on med gain is like 20 on lo gain, just as 0 on high is like 20 on medium/40 on low), or 160 of the settings "overlap" the others (pretty sure each attentuation is -20dB, if I'm saying that right).
and, the gain also seems to affect the brightness.
AND if mics are plugged in, that also affects the gain setting (only ever used "high" with the Sonics, due to the lo-cut being "permanently taped into" the mics due to the short I isolated)
all that said, 140 sensitivity levels is a LOT more choice than the 30 in the Edirol, AND the mics in the DR-2D, to these ears, sound rich and full, and occasionally outperform the Sonics.
that's just how it is.
pretty sure the Black Mountain and Mulvey links I posted are on archive/etree (I think it was you who asked)
It's especially funny when you try to pick a fight when someone is at least partly agreeing with you. I was responding to Daspy's comment in which he more or less said they were closer to internals. IMHO Sonics are much better than internals and the others I mentioned (CA and CSB). While Sonics and CSBs are based on the same $2 Panasonic capsule, the Sonics IMHO sound much, much better.
daspy will try to say anything to get a rise out of me, he backs up his insults with nothing of substance, which is what makes him so laughable.
your recordings are actually pretty good, the few I've heard...as are edtyre's.
I'm not 100% anti-mic stand (see what i said about Datfly in the link at the top of this post); it's more the attitudes of the bulk of their owners/users that are particularly grating.
Easily a full 11% better than any internal recording I've heard. Well done. You must know that taper trick to point the mics towards the PA. ;-)
why anyone would bother taping/listening to 2017 Clapton/Waters/et al I've no idea.
Clapton's last "amazing" playing was with Cream, he's been coasting ever since...one of the most overrated players I've ever heard, output-wise the last 40+ years.
the junk took his skills away quick.
what's the difference between a 4 year old and a bag of heroin?
Clapton won't drop the heroin.#CHECKaaaaaaaaaaaandMATE