Taperssection.com
Gear / Technical Help => Recording Gear => Topic started by: Billy Mumphrey on August 15, 2024, 10:53:48 PM
-
Picked up an extra pair of Line Audio CM4's locally, giving me a total of 4 of them as well as the opportunity to run a couple recorders head to head. I ran a pair of CM4's into a Marantz PMD661 with the Oade Warm modification (24/48) and right underneath those, the other pair of CM4's right into a Zoom F3 (32fp/48). All mics were at 90 degrees with 25.5cm of spacing in between capsules, using Movo windscreens. Pm for the results or I'll probably upload a spoiler txt file later on. No editing except some level adjustment to get them close. Dithered/noise shape -> 16/44.1 > flac. I was very thorough in making sure to not get any of the files mixed up. :)
https://samply.app/p/AQz3hJVGLYUqPV9nCZKo
Notes:
-I haven't had the practice of setting levels in well over a year due to 32fp. I start the PMD661 during soundcheck and the levels are spot on (peaks at -12), don't even need to change them haha.
-The above samples are from a favorite young local jazz band Daruma, who have wonderful original arrangements. There were 3 more bands that I would normally be totally down to record and preserve for all of time, but I just wasn't feeling it and skipped out after the opener. Felt (kinda) bad but I'm home early and I doubt anyone even noticed. I always try to record everyone, but I've been taping a lot lately and sometimes you gotta stay fresh.
Quick sound thoughts:
-flavors :)
EDIT: If the mics look a bit wonky in the pics, it's because they are. I took this during soundcheck and later on I adjusted all mics so they were identically spaced and angled.
-
First, thanks for doing this, I love equipment comparisons.
Second, why did you go to 44/16? Why not leave them at 48/24?
-
First, thanks for doing this, I love equipment comparisons.
Second, why did you go to 44/16? Why not leave them at 48/24?
You know, you're right actually, it's better to leave out any unnecessary steps or conversions. 99.99% of my recordings are for non-tapers and non-audiophiles so I'm just so accustomed to saving to a standard file size.
I went ahead and added NATIVE FORMAT files to the comp. The files labeled "native format" have not had any dither, noise shape, or resampling applied to them. Just a slight level adjustment to match each other, and that's it. I also took great care to not mix up any of these files, for it's actually fairly easy to do!
I've already had a couple people in PM's guess right. Good ears! I can BARELY tell in my car speakers, but it's pretty apparent on studio monitors, especially A-B ing.
-
First, thanks for doing this, I love equipment comparisons.
Second, why did you go to 44/16? Why not leave them at 48/24?
You know, you're right actually, it's better to leave out any unnecessary steps or conversions. ...
Technically speaking, a fair comparison would be to process both of them equally (or as equally as possible), so actually, no. Processing one and leaving the other is not a fair comparison. You did it right in the first place.
Just saying.
-
Going from 48/32 to 48/24 after setting levels isn’t a destructive process. Dithering to 16 and converting to 44 is.
-
You are confusing sampling rate with frequency.
Going from 32 bit to 24 bit w/out dithering is no different than going from 24 bit to 16 bit w/out dithering.
https://www.izotope.com/en/learn/what-is-dithering-in-audio.html (https://www.izotope.com/en/learn/what-is-dithering-in-audio.html)
OK, I just realized I am confusing terminology. For sample rate, I meant bit depth. Any time you lower that, you are introducing errors. The link I provided will make that clear.
Sorry for not being clear, I am a bit tired.
-
You are confusing sampling rate with frequency.
Going from 32 bit to 24 bit w/out dithering is no different than going from 24 bit to 16 bit w/out dithering.
https://www.izotope.com/en/learn/what-is-dithering-in-audio.html (https://www.izotope.com/en/learn/what-is-dithering-in-audio.html)
I'm not confused. 32bit float and 24bit both have more headroom than either recorder is capable of utilizing. You absolutely can just convert 32bit float to 24bit without needing to dither, because the noise floor for 24bit is -144db. On the off chance there was material down there that was truncated, it would never be heard.
-
This has nothing to do with noise floor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantization_(signal_processing) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantization_(signal_processing))
-
https://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=153333.msg1940767#msg1940767
That summarizes what's going on pretty well.
For the purposes of recording what we record, there's no difference between 24bit fixed and 32bit float. Once you normalize, your entire 32 bit datastream is inside 24bit, and the remaining bits are unused, because you're not scaling.
-
... Just saying.
I don't think it really matters. Reason, a floating point number holds info like xxxxxx*10^yy (mantissa and exponent). 32 bit floating point is stored in a computer cpu as 23 or 24 bits of mantissa and the other bits are exponent. Saving to 24 bit is basically keep the mantissa and forget the exponent. So it's not at all the same thing as going from 24bit to 16bit. I expect those checkboxes in the software screen don't mean much at all in this case, but possibly make the software do a lot of exta math for nothing.
Although this is an opinion, just as mine is, this assumes all software manipulates bits in the same way. I have written programs that manipulate floating point numbers as fixed point and I can assure you that there are many ways to go about it. Tossing the exponent is not necessarily the way every program will handle it.
-
My guess:
1 is 661
2 is F3
-
I went ahead and posted a spoiler txt file with the results.
For the "native format" files, I opened the Zoom F3 file (32FP 48kHz) in Reaper, made a small adjustment to volume, and rendered it as a 32FP 48kHz file (the dither buttons are greyed out, so there is no change to the bit depth or sample rate). For the PMD661 file (24-bit 48kHz) I opened it in Reaper, made a small adjustment to the volume, and rendered it as a 24-bit 48kHz file (the dither buttons are greyed out, so there is no change to the bit depth or sample rate). Then I flac'd them and uploaded them. Just wanted to be clear, since one is 32fp/48 and the other is 24/48.
I've always wondered how software is actually handling a 32fp file. Reading your guys discussion made me realize how little I know lol. However I find it pertinent to a comp with 32fp files tho and welcome all knowledge.
Next I would like to put a pair of CM4's and CM3's on a stand and run both of them into a Zoom F6. Maybe my 2nd pair of CM4's into an MP2 > F6, see how some transformers sound.
Spyder9 that's your warm mod 661, thank you for selling me that and an MP2.
For the record, I enjoy both of the recordings in the comp.
-
Just read the results. Wow!
-
Caveat that I listened through my laptop sound card, so not a very good system. I felt sample 2 was the slightly better sounding sample. Seemed to have a notch better presence, which is something I appreciate in a jazzy recording with lots of hi-hat and subtle cymbal use. Overall impression though is that the difference between the two is not very discernable and definitely not enough to say that one is the clear winner over the other...but then again like I said I didn't listen through a very good system.
Thanks for the comp.
-
Doug's a solid engineer, but the difference between different IC based preamps isn't gonna show up in a casual listening environment
-
Doug's a solid engineer, but the difference between different IC based preamps isn't gonna show up in a casual listening environment
Yet he's offered mods of different 'colors' that clearly have different sounds, so clearly his designs have differences that impact the sound of his mod products. Is your point that listening through a shitty system is counterproductive? If so, point taken and that's why I qualified my comment. But since nearly two weeks later, only one person had offered their opinion on the sound results from the comp, I thought I'd give the OP some love and provide my thoughts on the actual sound of the recordings instead of critiquing his technique.
-
The only 2 performance enhancements that introduce "color" are the two that use FET op amps, the warm mod for loud sources, and the FET mod for nature/Foley work. The concert mod and super mod both use bipolar op amps, and are extremely transparent. I have decks with both warm and concert mods and the FET op amps do add the characteristic sound of those chips, the rounded bass and non-strident highs. The warm mod 661 takes the sizzle out of AKG 460s which is why I got it 15 years ago. When I tried using dynamic mics with the warm mod several years ago, I found the highs were not pushing through and the bass sounded a bit tubby. Doug sent me a concert mod to try out and the bass was tighter and the highs were more distinct. That is what I found to be the real world differences between the two preamp mods. (For the heck of it I ran the 460s into the concert mod and the bass was too crunchy and the highs were uncomfortably sharp.) What this comp helped me with is accepting the F3 as a viable alternative when the Marantz decks I have need to be retired. Thanks for the comp!
-
What this comp helped me with is accepting the F3 as a viable alternative when the Marantz decks I have need to be retired. Thanks for the comp!
That was my takeaway as well, at least in terms of F3 performance (my 661 is stock, not a warm mod). I bought an F3 awhile back based on sound sampling I'd done. It's a marvel how far audio recording has come since the days of analog cassette tape flips. :coolguy:
-
I hear most of the difference in the high frequencies, basically the hihat/cymbals and the snare. In the words of someone who PM'd me: with the F3 source, the upper mids are clean and sharp and the high end is silky and extended.
The warm mod is just a little bit softer, the highs don't jump out at you like the F3 but still very pleasant. I've been on an analog kick lately, thanks to goodcookers cassette project as well as listening to a lot of Mike Millard recordings, and it makes me appreciate what Doug tries to do with these mods.
I hesitated to put the "vs" in the title, as it's not a competition to me but a presentation of options. But I knew both would sound good and was hoping to open people to both: the Zoom F series recorders are not the junk/toy recorders of years ago but serious options. The Oade mods are not snake oil but still relevant, especially if you want different "flavors" for different scenarios.
I plan to keep my warm mod 661 primarily for outdoor recordings, particularly bluegrass. When I first got the 661 I ran it indoors for a jazz show where I was really close to the stage and it is such a wonderful recording with huge soundstage.
I did NOT start hearing these kinds of details until I upgraded my playback. I'm soooo fortunate to finally get out of apartments and now I have a dedicated listening room with sound treatment. In my not-so-humble opinion studio monitors are the best way to listen to audience recordings :) I've heard some awesome home theaters/playbacks but they tend to color the sound; I want to hear my gear transparently. For my living room I even picked up some used Presonus bluetooth 4.5 inch monitors to run from a phone or laptop and they're great. If you're still in apartments, start with a entry level DAC/headphone amp and some decent cans. You don't need to break the bank IMO. Look on Facebook Marketplace, the amount of people who tried (and failed) to start a podcast or home studio are endless these days.
-
Here is the entire show, both sources.
https://samply.app/p/fS8sU3RBaqSgawbUBm0T
The band's name is Daruma and this was at Commons Park, which is pretty close to downtown Denver. Parking and traffic was atrocious (by my standards) and thus I was a bit sloppy in my execution; I had to pull the mics down and adjust (after the first song I believe) and then the soundguy's buddy came over and started yapping, naturally ::) So I shifted to the right about 4-5 feet after the 3rd or 4th song. I knew I just wanted to get enough for a proper comparison.
But the band is super chill about taping and worth a share.
-
I did NOT start hearing these kinds of details until I upgraded my playback.
All true of course, but one of the things I wish people would get away from is nit-piking on the methodology and/or technical discussion used in making the comps. Tech info is relevant, of course, but most comps end up mostly being conversations about why the comp may not be a good comp, which IMHO kinda sucks because usually someone has to go to quite great lengths to set up a comp and then post it onto the site. The last comp I did, literally the first comment asked was a very basic doubting of whether or not I'd set up the mics correctly. That shifted the entire thread conversation immediately into a new direction rather than having the focus be the comp itself. As if I'd go to the lengths to set-up, master, and then post a blind comp only to get something so fundamentally wrong with the comp. I had to spend a page defending my comp methodology and there was literally not a single comment on the comp itself. Totally wished I hadn't posted the comp at that point, got pissed off and took it down. (I can't help it, I'm a sensitive guy LOL.)
If you're still in apartments, start with a entry level DAC/headphone amp and some decent cans. You don't need to break the bank IMO. Look on Facebook Marketplace, the amount of people who tried (and failed) to start a podcast or home studio are endless these days.
I wish I had a listening room. But yes I agree with you for sure that the playback system is every bit as important as your recording system if you want to get the most out of your taping gear. My preference is open-back cans, but my wife has great hearing while I wear hearing aids so even when listening through my Sennheiser 700's (without my hearing aids), she's constantly telling me to turn it down HAHA. :headphones: My most common listening scenario is either my closed-back cans or IEMs. I have a decent quality DAC that I can't remember the name of, but I've come to the conclusion that the quality of the headphones is more important to my system than the DAC. (Comments welcome.)
That said, for A vs B comping, I don't think it's quite as important to listen through a top-level sound system since you're listening for differences in the two samples. Obviously subtle differences might not be obvious on lower quality systems, but basic impressions have always been what I'm after when I post a comp. I mean, if two samples are really close, I can't tell a difference if you separate them by 5 minutes anyway, so I personally don't concern myself at that level since my audience recordings aren't perfect to begin with.
I'm not arguing, just offering some thoughts I've had over the years.
:cheers:
-
You bring up a good point about basic impressions, especially in regards to these being subtle differences. Not everyone wants to analyze these things to level that some of us here like to do, and I think it helps to remember that. Especially because that can be a huge turnoff for newbies. Everyone go out and tape bands, listen on your laptop speakers if you want and enjoy your recordings! :) If you want to start choosing your gear a little more carefully, these comps are a great starting point.
Shoutout unclehoolio, he's shared a number of his comps with me and his thoughts (and his ears) are always on point.